HomeMy WebLinkAboutBlooming Meadow CUP 03-022June 2, 2003 CUP 03-021
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 5, 2003
APPLICANT The Cutting Edge, LC ITEM NO. ~ 6
REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for
townhouses and single-family homes in proposed R-8 and R-15 zones for proposed Blooming
Meadows Estates Subdivision - 4379 North Locust Grove Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
~¢.~, o~.ac.1~,.cV CAwtitM.wt~
See c~fFached Comments
£~VI i ~~
~~~
Contacted: ~ Q }~~ ~~;~ Date: ~ Phone:
Materlab presented at public meetings shall become property of the Cly of Meridian.
y~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
J ~.) N - 6 2003
CITY OF ~tERIDI~\
DATE June 5, 2003 ITEM # 16
PROJECT NUMBER CUP 03-022
PROJECT NAME Blooming Meadows Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
7~~ J /~/ ~r~et/ ~
v g~t,~ ~
~ /
V
i ~
~~~ v
J ~ ~-
." ~~
J
v~
L/
~///
/~' / R' "'~~ ~ 1
//
~v/ J / n
/l~l/ IKC ~_....
L~
~_
p~7~" iN Gam.
` C V
C
L
U
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
MAYOR A Crood Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208)466-9272 • Fax 4664405
Robert D. Come CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS
CITY CGUNCILMEMBERS
33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Tamrrty deWeerd
'
IDAHO 83642
MERIDIAN (208) 898-5500 ~ Fax 887-1297
vd
Keith B
Cherie McCanNesa ,
(208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 8874813
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
Wiliam L.M. Nary (208) 8845533 • FAX 8886854
STAFF REPORT: Transmittal Date: May 29, 2003
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2003
To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission RECEIVED
`~^"'~'
From: Steve Siddoway, Planner II JUN 0 2 2003
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech
City Of Meridian
Re: Blooming Meadows Estates City Clerk Office
• Annexation and Zoning of 11.5 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8
(Medium Density Residential District) and R-15 (Medium High Density
Residential District), by The Cutting Edge, LC. (Fide No. AZ-03-011).
• Preliminary Plat Approval of Sixty-Two (62) Building Lots and Eight (8)
Other Lots on 11.3 Acres in Proposed R-8 and R-15 Zones, by The Cutting
Edge, LC. (File No. PP-03-012).
• Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Planned Development of Townhouses-
and Single-Family Homes, on 11.3 acres in proposed R-8 and R-15 Zones, by
The Cutting Edge, LC. (File No. CUP-03-022).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments, as
conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATIONS SUNIMARY
The applicant, The Cutting Edge, LC., has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ), Preliminary
Plat (PP) and Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development (CUP/PD) approval of sixty-two
(62) building lots and eight (8) other lots on 11.3 acres located on the west side of Locust Grove
Road, just south and east of Havasu Creek Subdivision. The proposed 62 building lots include 30
townhouse lots in a proposed R-15 zone and 32 single-family lots in a proposed R-8 zone.
The net density of the project is 6.38 d.u./acre in the proposed R-8 zone and 9.11 d.u./acre in the
propsed R-15 zone. These proposed densities are in harmony with both the zoning districts and
the Comprehensive Plan. The CUP/PD application requests reduced lot frontages, reduced lot
sizes, reduced minimum house square footages, and reduced setbacks. These proposed
modifications are detailed below. This is a single phase development.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 2
The eight "other" lots within the subdivision include six common landscape lots and two open
space/drainage/pazk lots. The proposed PD amenities include agazebo/picnic area in the
townhouse area and a sand volleyball court in the single-family azea. These amenities aze not
depicted on the submitted landscape/site plans, but are described in the applicant's letter
accompanying the CUP/PD application.
The applicant has asked for the following modification and/or reductions as part of the
proposed Planned Development:
R-8 (Single Family) Area:
Lot Size- City Requirements
6,500 sq.ft.
(Minimum)
Proposed Lot Sizes
5,116 sq. ft.
(Minimum)
Lot Frontage-City Requirements
65'minimum
Cul-de-sac - Citv Requirements
Frontage 40' chord minimum
House Size- Citv Reauirements
1,301 sq. ft. minimum
Proposed Frontage
51' minimum
Proposed Frontage
18.63' chord minunum (with shared driveways)
Proposed Size
1,200 sq. ft. minimum
R-15 (Townhouse) Area:
Setbacks- City Requirements
Front: 20'
provided
of townhouse lots)
Side: 5'/story
common lots)
(Minimum)
Proposed Setbacks
Front: 0' (driveways and landscaping aze
on a common lot in front
Side: 0' (connected townhouses and
(Minimum)
Lot Size- City Requirements
2,400 sq.ft.
(Minimum)
Lot Frontage-City Requirements
50'minimum
House Size- Cit~Requirements
Proposed Lot Sizes
1,950 sq. ft. (driveways & landscaping in sepazate
common lot)
(Minimum)
Proposed Frontage
30' minimum
Proposed Size
AZ03-011, PP-03-012, CUP-OJ-022 Booming Meedaws.AZ.PP.CUP
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 3
1,301 sq. ft. minimum 850 sq. ft. minimum
The legal descriptions submitted with the application appeaz 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.
LOCATION
The property is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately''/o mile south of
McMillan Road. It is southeast of the recently approved Havasu Creek Subdivision.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Havasu Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4 and Rural Residence, zoned RUT (Ada County)
South: Rural Residence, zoned RUT (Ada County).
East: Heritage Subdivision, zoned RUT (Ada County).
West: Havasu Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4
OWNER OF RECORD
The property owners of record are Carl and Bonnie Reiterman and they have provided notarized
consent for submission of these applications.
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 sandads and
shall fmd adequate evidence answering, the following questions about the proposed zoning
amendment."
The following is the list of sandads found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and 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 designations, R-8 and R-15, are harmonious
with and in accordance with the effective Comprehensive Plan (`02) and Future
Land Use Map. The proposed R-8 area is shown as Medium. Density Residential
(3 to 8 d.u./acre) and the proposed R-15 azea is proportionate to the azea shown as
a Neighborhood Center, with aMixed-Use Neighborhood designation (at least 8
d.u.acre). The proposed densities for both areas match the required densities for
the corresponding land use designation.
AZ-03-DI1, PP-0}012, CUP-03-022 Hloortting M~adows.AZ.PP.CUP
Planning & Zoning Cotnmission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 4
B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the
future;
Staff does not anticipate that the applicant intends to rezone the subject property
in the future.
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 fmds that the proposed single family and townhouse subdivision would be
allowed within the requested R-8 and R-15 zones, (if the accompanying
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development is also approved).
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 south will be developed in a manner similaz to the
proposed subdivision, as it also has a high density Neighborhood Center
designation on it. Additionally, the annexation and plat approval of Havasu Creek
Subdivision immediately to the north and west signifies a change in the area that
would s upport t he p roposed u se. T he approved s Ingle-family h omes i n H avasu
Creek are adjacent to the proposed single-family homes in Blooming Meadows.
The proposed townhouse azea is closer to Locust Grove Road. ACRD has
reviewed the adjacent street capacity and has approved the proposed subdivision
(with conditions).
E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing 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 use (single family residential and townhouses) will
change the existing character of the azea, which is currently rural residential.
However, the change is harmonious with the intended chazacter envisioned by the
Comprehensive Plan, as described above.
F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
AZ03-011, PP-03-012,CUP~OI-022 Blooming Meadows AZ PP CUP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 5
G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, police and fire 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 of such services;
Staff finds that the property to be annexed may be served adequately by all
essernial 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 Pazks, Police, Fire Department, and ACHD comments concerning
this subdivision for further information regarding public services.
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
and that the annexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's
economic welfare.
L 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 fords 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 with the approval of
this subdivision; however staff does not feel that the amount generated will be
detrimental to the public welfaze of the city.
1. 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 was not granted a separate vehicular access off of
Locust Grove Road and will be taking access through the approved access in
Havasu Creek Subdivision. As such, the project will not create interference at a
<n,,,e,,'w accesys poiyrn oronto Locust FGTr~ove. Trhe projeACt will createq~addition}al}~tgraffic
~ - -" - tYrili'imP'~ f~Tflll°alf flip ~fl~li~~ nt H~va cii t'~Pa.~~ HnwPVPI• c~att r~nPC rent hP.~1PVP
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 6
Please review ACRD 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. (Ord. 592,11-17-1992)?
Staff finds that the annexation of this property would be in the best interest of the
City.
ANEXATION AND ZONING COMMENTS
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.
2. A Development Agreement shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the
Applicant as part of the Annexation application. The Development Agreement shall outline
any special conditions placed upon the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use applications.
3. The legal descriptions for annexation and zoning describe the subject property, and comply
with the requirements of the State Tax Commission and City of Meridian.
PRELIMIrTARY PLAT FINDINGS AND ltE0UII2EMENfS
Sections 12-3-3 7.2 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 acconunodate the proposed development.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 7
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
development;
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 heahh, safety or environmental problems
associated with this subdivision that may be brought to the Council or Commission's
attention.
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS / PRELINIINARY PLAT
1. All conditions of the accompanying Annexation and Conditional Use Permit applications
shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat.
2. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via main line extensions from the existing
mains adjacent to the property.
3. Domestic water service to this site shall be via main line extensions from the existing
mains adjacent to the property.
4. 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.
5. The applicant has indicated that the pressurized irrigation system within this development
is to be part of the regional system in Havasu Creek, owned and operated by the Settler's
Imgation District. 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 yeaz-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, asingle-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 azeas prior to signature on the final plat by the
Meridian City Engineer.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 8
6. A detailed fencing plan shall be submitted upon application of the final plat. A 6-foot
solid fence shall be required around the perimeter of the subdivision unless the City
agrees in writing that such a fence is not required. Applicant shall address intended
fencing design at the public hearings.
7. Applicant shall provide a street buffer width of 25 feet minimum along Locust Grove
Road, beyond future right-of--way, as depicted on the preliminary plat.
8. In accordance with MCC 12-13-10-8, Applicant shall provide 5-foot detached sidewalks
adjacern to Locust Grove Road Road. Applicant shall also provide 4-foot detached
sidewalks internally, as depicted on the preliminary plat.
9. A Fencing Plan is required to be submitted with the preliminary plat for review and
approval The applicant shall submit 15 copies of a proposed fencing plan at least 10 days
prior to the next public hearing.
10. The Landscape Plan dated 4-15-03 is approved as submitted, with the following
modification: The proposed pine trees in the center parking island in Carls Way shall be
changed to an approved deciduous species.
11. Add or revise the following preliminary plat notes:
(1.) Lots 34 and 35, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2 4 are landscape...
• Add a note to face of the plat regarding the "Right to Farm Act"
12. Fifteen (15) copies of a revised plat shall be submitted to the City Clerk's Office at least
ten days prior to the next public hearing for this application.
GENERAL COMMENTS-PRELINIINARY PLAT
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. Any 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.
Planning & Zoning Commission/AMayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 9
6. Sidewalks within the proposed subdivision shall be built in accordance with MCC 12-13-
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 Departmern for
review. Any drainage areas (deternion/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.
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. Please submit updated groundwater/soils monitoring data to the Public Works
Department for review. All 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. The
project engineer should pay close attention to the results of field studies determining the
groundwater, soil type & and characteristics during the design and construction phases.
The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established normal groundwater elevation. This is
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 10
to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above
groundwater.
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 lazge enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features as noted above if the requested reductions aze approved by
the Commission and Council.
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 currern Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as "Medium
Density Residential" and `2Veighborhood Center/Mixed-Use-Neighborhood". Staff fmds
that the proposed residernial uses and densities 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, reduced house size, and reduced
setbacks. If the project is approved as a Planned Development, it will meet the minimum
requirements of the MCC.
C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area;
Staff finds that the proposed use (single family residential and townhouses) will change
the existing character of the area, which is currently rural residential. However, the
change is harmonious with the imended character envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan.
D. That the proposed nae, 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.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & Ciry Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June S, 2002
Page 11
E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and fu•e 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 the proposed use will not invoke activities or processes, materials, equipment,
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, properly, 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 the 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 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 historic feature considered to be of major importance.
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, if removed.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 12
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Reduced Standards: The Applicant is requesting reduced lot frontages, reduced lot sizes,
reduced minimum house square footages, and reduced setbacks. The requested
modifications aze detailed on page 2 of this report and again on the face of the
preliminary plat. Staff has no objections to the requested modifications. The zero side
setbacks aze acceptable for an attached townhouse project; end units aze adjacent to
landscaped common lots, not the perimeter of the subdivision. The zero from setbacks
and reduced lot sizes are acceptable for the townhouses given that the driveways and
front landscape areas aze proposed to be in a common lot. Setbacks and minimum lot
sizes would be met outright if these azeas were made part of the individual lot, but staff
supports the proposed configuration, as it will provide for uniform maintenance of the
project. See Site Specific Condition #2.
2. Sample Layout: Staff does have concerns about the buildability of some of the lots and
requests that the applicant bring to the hearing a sample layout for lots 5&6, Block 4 and
Lot 12, Block 2. On the sample layouts, please show the proposed setbacks, etc. and how
a house can fit on the lots.
3. Townhouse Fences: In order to maintain some openness to the project and to allow for
pedestrian access to the ogee space, staff recommends adding a condition that no fences,
except for the perimeter fencing for the project as a whole, will be allowed in the
townhouse development. See Site Specific Condition #3.
4. Trees along South: The south property line is contiguous with an existing Waal
residential lot and pasture. As such, Ordinance 12-13-12 requires a 20-foot wide buffer
between land uses adjacent to the townhouse area. This same area is covered by an
existing 20-foot gravity irrigation easement for Settler's Irrigation District. The easement
will preclude any of the required buffer trees from being planted. Ordinance 12-13-18
allows for an applicant to request alternative compliance if "other regulatory agencies or
departments having jurisdiction are requiring design standards that conflict with the
requirements of this Ordinance." In the applicar-ts' letter, they propose as alternative
compliance "to provide the landscaping trees in moveable pots, since Settlers Irrigation
District does not allow landscaping over 2' tall within the easement." They also point out
that the area directly south of the townhouse project is currently pasture (the rural
residence sits fiuther west, below the single-family area). Further, the area south of the
townhouse development is shown as Neighborhood Center/Mixed Use in the
Comprehensive Plan and will likely develop at a similaz high density in the future.
The submitted landscape plan shows 24 trees in the buffer area that would have to be
potted. The applicant should verify at the public hearing if they truly intend to pot a1124
trees. The Commission could approve a reduced number of potted trees in the buffer if
they deem it appropriate. No Site Specific condition has been added on this issue to
allow for discussion to happen first.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 13
5. Ooen Space/Lot removal: Staff suggests removing Lot 4, Block 1 and making the azea
part of Lot 2 (open space). The proposed open space is currently hidden behind the
easternmost row of townhouses. Eliminating the one lot would provide better visual
access into the open space from the access drive and improve pedestrian access to the
open space amenity. See Site Specific Condition #4.
6. Settler's Easement: The Settler's Irrigation District easement runs along the south
property line, in the reaz yards of Block 2 in the single-family residential area. This will
require one irrigation box to be located in the rear yard of Lot 10. Often, the City
requires such easements to be located in a common lot. Havasu Creek, adjacent to the
proposed subdivision was approved with the ditch line in reaz yards without a common
lot. Staff raises the issue for discussion with the Commission, but has no objections to
the proposed layout. Applicant must obtain an encroachmem agreement with Settler's
Irrigation District in order to develop the lots as proposed. Otherwise, the layout will
have to be modified to include a common lot for any area the irrigation district will not
allow encroachment. The applicant should address any discussions they have had with
the irrigation district regazding the encroachment issue. See Site Specific Condition #5.
7. Pedestrian Access: Since the subdivision has no direct access to Locust Grove, staff
recommends that a 5-foot asphalt pedestrian pathway be constructed through Lot 2 to the
sidewalk along Locust Grove. See Site Specific Condition #6.
8. Onen Space: The landscape ordinance requires at least 5% common open space in
single-family projects and 10% in multi-family projects. The proposed layout meets this
requirement by providing 5.5% open space in the single family azea and 11% in the
townhouse area. This calculation is exclusive of required buffers. The project as a whole
averages over 7% open space.
9. Amenities: The proposed amenities for the planned development are not depicted on the
site plans, but are mentioned the applicant's letter. The first amenity is proposed to be a
gazebo and picnic tables in the townhouse open space (Lot 2, Block 1). The second
amenity is proposed to be a sand volleyball court in the bottom of the detention pond on
Lot 13, Block 4 in the single-family area. The Commission and Council should review
these proposed amenities and determine if they are "appropriate to the size and uses of
the proposed development" per Ordinance 12-6-2.3. The layout of the amenities should
be shown on a site/landscape plan. See Site Specific Condition #7.
10. Private Street/Sidewalks: The townhouse development is accessed by a 25-foot wide
access drive on a conunon lot in the subdivision. The Planned Development ordinance
provides standards for private roads (42' right-of--way with a 29-foot street section and 5-
foot sidewalks on both sides). However these standards are more applicable to a single-
family residential subdivision. If the same townhouse project were done as a commercial
project on a single large lot, they would be allowed to do the 25-foot drive aisles, as
proposed. The Fire Dept. comments approve of the 25-foot drive aisles as long as they
are signed "no parking" and they meet turning radii. Therefore, staff recommends
allowing the proposed 25-foot drive aisles and adding sidewalks in front of all the
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 14
townhouses and along the sides of the center block of townhouses. This can be
accommodated without a major modification of the layout, as the proposed site plan
already provides 25 feet between the drive aisle and the structures. Therefore, a 5-foot
attached sidewalk and rolled curb can be provided adjacent to the drive aisle and still
allow for 20-foot deep driveway in front of the garages. The submitted plat already
depicts detached sidewalks from N. Heritage Woods Ave. into the townhouse area, which
should remain as shown. See Site Specific Condition #8.
SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS (Conditional Use Permit)
1. Applicant shall meet all of the requirements of the annexation and preliminary plat as a
condition of the Conditional Use Permit.
2. The project shall conform to the modified minimum standards, as proposed by the
applicant, as detailed on page 2 of this report and on the face of the preliminary plat.
3. No fences, except for the perimeter fencing around the project as a whole, will be
allowed within the townhouse development.
4. Eliminate the proposed Lot 4, Block 1 and make the area part of Lot 2 (open space).
5. Submit a copy of a signed encroachment agreement with Settler's Irrigation District with
the final plat application.
6. Applicant shall construct a 5-foot asphalt pedestrian pathway through Lot 2, Block 1 to
the sidewalk along Locust Grove.
7. Applicant shall construct a 5-foot asphalt pedestrian pathway from the townhouses
through Lot 2 to the sidewalk along Locust Grove.
8. Applicant shall provide 5-foot attached sidewalks and rolled curb in front of all
townhouses and along the sides of the center block of townhouses. Driveways in front of
the townhouses shall remain at least 20 feet deep.
9. Applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the proposed
townhouse project and both amenities prior to applying for building permits.
10. All developmern shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair
Housing Act.
11. Applicant shall submit 15 copies of a revised preliminary plat and landscape plan in
conformance with the direction of the Planning & Zoning Conunission at least 10 days
prior to the next hearing on this application.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: June 5, 2002
Page 15
RECONIl~ICNDATION
Staff supports the higher density townhouse use in compliance with the Neighborhood Center
designation along Locust Grove and the transition to larger lots adjacent to Havasu Creek
Subdivision. We also support a mix of house product types in the CUP/PD. However, given the
following outstanding issues, staff is recommending the P&Z Commission continue the public
hearing so a revised site/landscape plan can be prepared and reviewed prior to the City Council
hearings:
1. Potted trees in Settler's easement;
2. Removal of Lot 4, Block 1;
3. Pedestrian connection Locust Grove;
4. Amenities depicted on landscape plans;
5. Revise landscape plan;
6. Add sidewalks to the townhouse area;
7. Fencing plan.
MAYOR
RoBEATD. CORRIE
cr~F
KEN W. BOWERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS ~ DEPUTY CHIEF -FIRE PREVENTION
WII.LIAM L.M. NARY
~;: JOSEPH SII.VA
KEITH BEID DEPUTY Cf~F - TAAIN[NG
TAMMY DE WEERD crrv ow _
~~~a BII.L JOHNSON
CHERIE MCCANDLESS ~ ~
RvAALFmECoNm-ussIGNEAS ~~
?~n y' S40EastFranklinRoad
RlcxwxnGREENE T I°`~° Me[idian,ID83642
TERRY LEIGHTON C~+
"¢ (2O$) SS8-1234
'
STEVE ELLIOTT °` T~ ~.~~~~v--~'• tg~ ax (208) 895-0390
F
MERIDIAN CITY/RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT
T~~CEIVEI~
May 27, 2003 MAY 2 72003
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
TO: Mayor, City Council and the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Joseph Silva, Deputy Chief, Fire Prevention
SUBJECT: Blooming Meadows Subdivision AZ 03-011, CUP 03-022
The following will be the requirements and/or wncerns to provide minimum levels of fire
protection for the proposed project:
1. That afire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute be available to service the entire project.
Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500' apart. 1997 UFC Appendix III-A
2. Operational fire hydrams and temporary or permanent street signs are required
before wmbustible construction begins. UFC 901.4.2 & 901.3
3. Acceptance of water supply for fire protection is contingent upon acceptance of the
water system by the City of Meridian for water quality.
4. All radii shall be 28' inside and 48' outside radius.
5. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services Consulting Group in
February of 2000 our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005
and 3800 by the year 2010, this is up from 2069 responses in the year 2000.
6. Provide an approved turnaround for all streets greater than 150' in length that have no
outlet. This may be a factor in the process of phasing the project.
7. The access road thru the Townhouse development will be required to be posted "No
Parking Fire Lane".
~~s ~'~ t !5, ll~
Sherry R. Huber, President - -- -° -~ °• __.....
Susan S. Eastlake, 1 st Vice President Garden Cdy ID 83714-6499
Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President Phone (208) 387-6100
David E. Wynkoop, Commissioner FAX (208) 387-6391
John S. Franden, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@ACHD.ada.id.us
May 29, 2003
TO: The Cutting Edge, LC
C/O Carl & Bonnie Reiterman
770 W. McMillan Road
Meridian, ID 83642
FROM: Craig Hood
Senior Development Analyst
Planning & Development
SUBJECT: MPP03-012/MAZ03-Oll/MCUP03-022
Bloonvng Meadows Subdivision
4379 N. Locust Grove Road
~ECEIVEI)
JUN'- 22003
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
On May 28, 2003 the Ada County Highway District Board of Commissioners acted on your applications for
the above referenced project. The attached staff report lists conditions of approval and street improvements,
which are required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact staff at (208) 387-6170.
/cerely,
raig Htlod
Senior Development Analyst
ACHD Planning & Development
Cc: Plannin pmenUchron/project file
Cons c ion Services
Drainage
Lloyd Pack, 1307 N. 39th Street, Ste. 101, Nampa, ID 83687
p~ Z ~~~.
Ada County Highw~ ~ -05-03
Ada County Highway District
Way & Development Department
PlanninP Review Division
This application requires Commission action because the applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement
to install sidewalk on one side of a focal roadway. This item was approved on the consent agenda on May
28, 2003. Tech Review for this item was held with the applicant on May 9, 2003. Please refer to Attachment
4 for request for reconsideration guidelines.
Staff contact: Craig Nood, 387-6174, chood achd.ada:id.us
File Numbers: MPP03-012/MAZ03-011/MCUP03-022, Blooming Meadows Subdivision
Site address: 4379 N. Locust Grove Road, Meridian
Owner: Carl & Bonnie Reitman
770 W. McMillan Road
Meridian, ID 83642
Applicant: The Cutting Edge, LC
770 W. McMillan Road
Meridian, ID 83642
Representative: URS Corp.
CIO David Irish
1750 Front Street, Ste. 100
Boise, ID 83702
Application Information
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat, conditional use, annexation and rezone approval from the City of
Meridian to subdivide 11.3-acres of proposed R-8 and R-15 zoned property into 62-buildable and 8-common
lots. The site is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, approximately'/< of a mile south of McMillan
Road.
Acreage: 11.3
Current Zoning: RUT
Proposed Zoning: R-S (6.79-acres) and R-15 {4.53-acres)
Proposed buildable lots: 62 total (32 within the R-8 zone/30 within the R-15 zone)
Proposed common lots: 8
Vicinlfi~ "~A^
A. Findings of Fact
Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 496 additional vehicle trips per day (0
existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
2. Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of any building
permit(s) on the site. The fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance in effect at that time.
3. Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was not required with this application. The following is a
summary of the findings from the North Meridian Traffic Study performed by Washington Group
International:
Executive Summary of the North Meridian Traffic Plan
The proposed 12-square mile study area between US 20!26 and Ustick Road and between
McDermott Road and Eagle Road has been examined by the Ada County highway District (ACRD)
for anticipated development build out. Based on development patterns in this area, and the concern
surrounding the abutting roadways, ACRD hired Washington Group to conduct a traffic impact study
of the northwestern Meridian area from Ustick Road to Chinden Boulevard, and from McDermott
Road to Eagle Road. The study was necessary to determine what types of roadway improvements,
especially at intersections, would be needed to accommodate the traffic in this area at full build out.
The following are the principal findings and recommendations of the study:
• The study area is anticipated to develop an additional 17,599 dwelling units, 2,744,000 square feet
of office buildings, 1,929,000 square feet of retail buildings, 12 elementary schools, 2 senior high
schools, 2 junior high schools, 38,260 square feet of church buildings, and approximately 60 acres
of park, at full build out.
• 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°k 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% of
the 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.
• All of the arterial intersections in the study area are currently operating at acceptable level of
service of "C" or better.
• The majority of study intersections are projected to meet the peak hour traffic signal warrants at full
build out of the area.
• Several mid-mile intersections may warrant traffic signals due to the heavy left turn traffic volume.
• At full build out, the following improvements may be anticipated within the study area:
0 5-lane road section with right turn lanes at some arterial and access intersections:
Chinden Boulevard, McMillan Road east of Black Cat Road, Ustick Road east of Black
Cat Road, Linder Road, Ten Mile Road, Meridian Road south of McMillan Road, and
Locust Grove Road at Ustick Road.
0 3-lane road section with right turn lanes at some arterial and access intersections:
McMillan Road west of Black Cat Road, Ustick Road west of Black Cat Road,
McDermott Road, Blacc Cat Road, Meridian Road north of McMillan Road, and Locust
Grove Road.
2
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 significant and
the traffic impact studies that each individual developer was submitting did not include the major
surrounding developments that are "in the works".
One option for funding improving these roadways is the implementation of an extra-ordinary impact
fee overlay district. This applicant will be subject to extraordinary fees, should an overlay district be
implemented in this area.
4. Site Information: The site is currently being used for Agricultural purposes.
5. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
a. North: Approved Havasu Creek Subdivision
b. South: Havasu Creek SubdivisioNTwo unplatted, 5-acre parcels
c. East: Single-family homes (Heritage Subdivision #1)
d. West: Havasu Creek Subdivision
6. Impacted Roadways:
Locust Grove Road:
Frontage:
Functional Street Classffication:
Traffic count:
Level of Service:
Speed limit:
Nearest intersection:
McMillan Road
Frontage:
Functional Street Classification:
Traffic count:
Current Level of Service:
Speed limit:
Nearest intersection:
Ustick Road
Frontage:
Functional Street Classification:
Traffic court:
Level of Service:
Speed limit:
Nearest intersection:
125-feet
Minor Arterial
4,719 south of McMillan Road on 6-28-01
Currently better than LOS "C"
35 MPH
McMillan Road, estop-controlled intersection
None
Minor Arterial
3,598 west of Locust Grove Road on 6-20-01
5,135 east of Locust Grove Road on 6-20-01
Currently better than LOS "C"
35 MPH
Locust Grove Road, estop-controlled intersection
None
Minor Arterial
7,640 east of Locust Grove Road on 6-20-01
Currently Better than "C"
50 MPH
Locust Grove Road, a signalized intersection
Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site
Locust Grove Road is currently improved with 2-lanes (no center turn lane) with no curb, gutter or
sidewalk abutting the site.
8. Existing Right-of-Way
There is currently 66-feet of right-of-way (33-feet from centerline) for Locust Grove Road abutting the
site.
3
9. Existing Access to the Site
Access to the site is currently provided from a 20-foot wide dirt driveway located on Locust Grove
Road, near the south property line.
10. Site History
ACHD has not reviewed this site in the recent past.
11. Five Year Work ProgramlCapital Improvements Plan {CIP)
This section of Locust Grave Road is not currently in the District's Five Year Work Plan or Capital
Improvements Plan.
12. Other Development in Area
Staff has recently been receiving large amounts of inquiries from developers in the north 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/commercial
lots, and city and neighborhood parks.
The following list is a compilation of developments that the District has approved recently within this
identified area:
• 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-
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}. Note: Later denied by City of
Meridian.
• On November 7, 2001 the Commission approved a rezone and annexation application for 370-
acres. The Commission also approved a preliminary plat for 336-lots on 175-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 fora 272-lot
residential subdivision on 78-acres (Baldwin Park).
• On April 17, 2002, the Commission approved a preliminary plat application fora 285-lot
subdivision on 75-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}.
• On July 17, 2002, the Commission approved a request for approval for an annexation and rezone
fora 135,000 square foot Middle School within the Meridian School District.
• On August 21, 2002, the Commission approved a preliminary plat application fora 144-lot
residential subdivision on 43-acres (Sundance Place Subdivision).
• On August 28, 2002, the Commission approved a preliminary plat application fora 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
(Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision).
• November 6, 2002, the Commission approved a 327-lot residential subdivision and 1 school site
on 120-acres (Havasu Creek Subdivision).
4
• On November 8, 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-acres (Education Campus Subdivision).
• On November 20, 2002, the Commission approved, Burney Glen Subdivision, a 117-lot single-
family residential subdivision on 36-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.
• On January 29, 2003, the Commission approved Parkstone Subdivision, a 334-mixed-use,
subdivision proposed to contain 275-single-famiy residential lots, 52-townhouse lots, 4-office lots,
2-commercial lots and 1-mini storage lot.
• On February 19, 2003, the Commission approved Setter Cove Subdivision, a 16-lot single-family
residential subdivision located on 10-acres.
• On March 19, 2003, the Commission approved Paramount Subdivision, an 847-lot mixed-use
subdivision proposed to contain 764 single-family residential lots, 5-commercial and office lots,
73-townhouse lots, 1multi-family lot (270 apartments), a community center, 1-elementary school
lot, 1-high school lot and 2-church lots on 392-acres.
• On April 23, 2003, the Commission approved Birchstone Creek Subdivision, a 98-lot residential
subdivision consisting of 89 single-family lots, an elementary school site and 8 common lots on
34.5-acres.
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.
One option for funding improving these roadways is the implementation of an extra-ordinary impact
fee overlay district. Blooming Meadows Subdivision may also be subject to any extraordinary fees
that the District may impose.
B. Findings for Consideration
Right-of-Way & Sidewalk
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.
District policy 7204.7.2 requires 5-foot wide (minimum) concrete sidewalk on all arterial roadways.
As a part of the North Meridian Traffic Plan, it was noted that a 3-lane roadway with curb,
gutter, 5-foot concrete detached sidewalks and bike lanes within 70-feet of right-of-way would
be adequate to accommodate the projected traffic volumes on McMillan Road and Locust
Grove Road. Due to the fact that the North Meridian Traffic Plan recommended a 70-foot right-
of-way on Locust Grove Road and the Commission has supported the recommendations in
5
the past, staff is recommending that the applicant dedicate 70-feet of right-of-way (35-feet
from centerline), opposed to the 96-foot standard right-of-way (48-feet from centerline).
This segment of Locust Grove Road is not listed in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan;
therefore, impact fees cannot be used to purchase the right-of-way abutting the site. Right-of-way
dedication is not required with this application. If the applicant chooses to dedicate the right-of-way,
ACRD will not provide compensation.
i. Dedicate by donation an additional 2-feet of right-of-way along Locust Grove Road (35-feet
total from centerline), and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Locust
Grove Road, located 2-feet within the new right of-way.
ii. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of 28-feet from the centerline of the
right-of-way. Provide the District with an easement for any portion of the sidewalk that is not
located within the right-of-way.
iii. Do not dedicate additional right-of--way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-way.
Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing drainage and
utilities.
2. Internal Streets
Right-of-Way
District policy 7204.4.1 and Figure 72-F1A require 50-feet of right-of-way on local streets. This right-
of-way allows for the construction of a 2-lane roadway with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalks. Aright-of-way width less than 40-feet will not be permitted (District policy 7204.4.1). Any
request to the District to approve a street with aright-of-way width of less than 50-feet must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the facts and circumstances of the development warrant a finding
of an exceptional case as outlined in policy 7204.4.
District policy 72-F1A, allows local residential public roads to be constructed 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.
District policy 72-F1A and 7204.4.3 allow residential roadways with 29-foot street sections with curb,
gutter and sidewalks within 42-feet of right-of-way with parking prohibited on one side of the roadway.
District policy 7204.4.7 states that sidewalks on local residential roadways shall be a minimum of 5-
feetwide when placed next to the back-of-curb. Sidewalks 4-feet wide (minimum) may be allowed
when separated from the curb by a planting strip at least 5-feet in width. Some local jurisdictions may
require wider sidewalks.
The applicant is proposing to construct Mooney Falls Way, Reiterman Drive, Heritage View Avenue,
Sonnies Place and Heritage Green Way with 33-foot street sections with curb, gutter and 4-foot
detached concrete sidewalk with parking on both sides all within 50-feet of right-of-way. The
proposed density of this development that will utilize the internal local residential streets is anticipated
to generate less than 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The applicant should submit a letter from the
appropriate fire district approving the alternative street section. !f the appropriate fire district reviews
and approves the alternative street section, the applicant should construct the internal roadways as
6
33-foot street sections with curb, gutter, 4-foot concrete sidewalk and parking on both sides within 50-
feet of right-of-way as proposed.
Request for Waiver of Policy:
The applicant is proposing to construct Carts Ways as 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and 4-
foot wide detached concrete sidewalk on one side of the roadway only. The design, location and
zoning around Carts Way meets the prerequisites outlined District policy for a reduced (42-foot) right-
of-way. However, District policy requires concrete sidewalk on both sides of a roadway and the
applicant is proposing a 4-foot wide detached sidewalk on only the outer portion of Carts Way
because it is unlikely that anyone would use the inner sidewalk (see Applicant's Letter).
StaffAnalysis and Recommendation:
Staff does not anticipate that there will be many pedestrians utilizing a sidewalk on the inside portion
of Carts Way. Further, if sidewalk were constructed the applicant would lose a significant portion of
the proposed drainage lot (Lot 1, Black 5). Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission grant
the applicant a waiver of policy for the requirement to instal! sidewalk on the inside portion of Carts
Way. The applicant should be required to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the outer portion
Carts Way and curb and gutter only on the inner portion of Carts Way.
Commission Action:
On May 28, 2003, the ACHD Board of Commissioners voted to grant the applicant a waiver of policy
for the requirement to construct sidewalk on the inside portion of Carts Way. The applicant should be
required to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk on the outer portion Cars Way and curb and gutter
only on the inner portion of Carts Way.
District policy 7204.11.6, requires logl roadways to align or offset a minimum of 125-feet from
another local roadway (measured centerline to centerline). The locations of the proposed internal
roadways meet District policy for location and should be approved with this application.
3. 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. All medians should be constructed
a minimum of 4-feet wide to total a minimum of a 100-square foot area. District policy 7205.2.1 states
that the maximum number of expected trips per day generated by those properties taking access
from an individual cut-de-sac shall not exceed 400.
The applicant is proposing to construct a cut-de-sac tumaround for Bonnies Place that has a 45-foot
radius without an island. The applicant should construct a District approved turnaround for Sonnies
Place as proposed.
4. Stub Streets
District policy 7203.5.1 and 7205.5 require stub streets to provide intra-neighborhood circulation and
to provide access to adjoining parcels. District policy also requires temporary turnarounds with a
temporary easement provided to the District at the end of stub streets that 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". A stub street shall be designed to slope towards the street intersection and drain
surface water toward that intersection, unless a satisfactory storm drain system is installed.
7
An existing street, or a street in an approved preliminary plat, which ends at a boundary of a
proposed development shall be extended in that development. The extension shall include provisions
for continuation of storm drainage facilities (District policy 7203.5.2).
The applicant is proposing to extend Mooney Falls Way from the south properly line located
approximately 140-feet east of the west property line. This stub street location was originally
approved with the Havasu Creek Subdivision. Staff is supportive of the extension of this roadway.
The applicant is proposing to extend Heritage Woods Avenue (approved as Heritage Green Way with
Havasu Creek Subdivision #2) from the north property line located approximately 250-feet east of the
west property line. This stub street location was originally approved with the Havasu Creek
Subdivision. Staff is supportive of the extension of this roadway.
The applicant is proposing to extend Heritage View Avenue from the north property line to the south
property line as a stub street. Heritage View Avenue stub is located approximately 860-feet east of
the west property line and was originally approved with the Havasu Creek Subdivision. The applicant
is proposing to continue the stub street to the south property line. Staff is supportive of the extension
and continuation of this roadway as a stub to the south. Due to the fact that this stub street is less
than 150-feet in depth, the applicant should not be required to construct a temporary turnaround. The
applicant should install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE
EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE".
5. Driveways
Direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted (District policy 7207.8). No access
points to Locust Grove Road have been proposed and none are approved with this application. Lot
access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat.
The applicant is proposing a driveway off of Heritage View Avenue, and in alignment with Reiterman
Drive, that serves the proposed townhouse lots on the east side of the development. The proposed
driveway located east of the intersection of Heritage View Avenue and Rederman Drive meets District
policy and should be approved with this application.
C. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
This segment of Locust Grove Road is not listed in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan
and impact fees cannot be used to purchase additional right-of-way; therefore, the applicant
shall do one of the following three options:
i. Dedicate by donation an additional 2-feet of right-of-way along Locust Grove Road
(35-feet total from centerline), and construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along Locust Grove Road, located 2-feet within the new right-of-way.
ii. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located a minimum of 28-feet from the centerline
of the right-of-way. Provide the District with an easement for any portion of the
sidewalk that is not located within the right-of-way.
8
iii. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Locust Grove Road, located at the back edge of the existing right-of-
way. Accomplish all necessary adjustments to properly accommodate existing
drainage and utilities.
2. Construct Mooney Falls Way, Reiterman Drive, Heritage View Avenue, Sonnies Place and
Heritage Green Way as 33-foot street sections with curb, gutter, 4-foot wide detached
concrete sidewalks and parking on both sides of the road within 50-feet of right-of-way, as
proposed. Submit a letter from the appropriate fire district approving the alternative street
section.
3. Construct Carls Ways as 29-foot street section with curb, gutter and 4-foot wide detached
concrete sidewalk on the outside portion of the roadway and curb and gutter only on the
inside portion of the loop roadway, within 42-feet of right-of-way as proposed. Parking shall
be prohibited on one side of the roadway. Submit a signage plan to District staff for approval.
Submit a letter from the appropriate fire district approving the alternative street section.
4. Construct a District approved turnaround for Bonnies Place. Provide a minimum turning
radius of 45-feet for Bonnies Place as proposed.
5. Extend the previously approved stub street, Mooney Falls Way located approximately 140-
feet east of the west property line, into the site from the south property line as proposed.
6. Extend the previously approved stub street, Heritage Green Way located approximately 250-
feet east of the west property line, into the site from the north property line as proposed.
7. Extend the previously approved stub street, Heritage View Avenue located approximately
860-feet east of the west property line, into the site from the north property line as proposed.
8. Construct Heritage View Avenue as a stub street to the south as proposed. Install a sign at
the terminus of the roadway stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE
FUTURE".
9. No direct lot access to Locust Grove Road is approved with this application. A note shall be
placed on the final plat stating that direct lot access to Locust Grove Road is prohibited.
10. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
9
D. Standard Conditions of Approval
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 #197, 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 cest to ACHD. The
applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585} at least two full business days prior to
breaking ground within ACRD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-
6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of
consUuction.
10. No change in the terms and condftions 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.
10
E. Conclusions of Law
The proposed site plan is approved, 'rf 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
Vicinity Map
Preliminary Plat
Applicant's Letter
Appeal Guidelines
11
U1/L4/1000 1b:U'! rna LUtltltlCUtl D4
•
ffinl(1L1Aly
unrl.
~J VUJ
~~
~LL1/ ~Q' R~"
Srl~
~ ~'
~t,~T
~u,T
~4
VICINITY MAP
04/25/2003 16:15 FA% Y088886854 MERIDIAN PBAZ DEPT.
fool
4
nllei iuil~6 ~~~ G~~•R
3Nn dw
"
~ +~
- -
a
.
___ ~
{1
1 i
l`
•
'
A n
i9 -- I ~ ' 0 5E ~E I e~ ie ~ Isy°
1 i
~
'
A a~ ]' ] I pn '
f°
~
~ 1
R
w N
V
_
nm .K }
a i
~
'
1
rme•r { 6 W ~
r
~ -- ..
1
,
€ F _ _ 9E
i ] A A' ] {
,' i i~
€n ~ IA I ~ i
i i
3E i- i~ A_ eE r
i ~ A~°..
`
~
•
v
] ae a' a a A
{ ~ ifi :c ~ O 40 B 9
~. ~
i~ I
'°~.' ~ ~ i• I` a .e e
~ .4 `~ .~ ~ S=. Ice €_ ii EE by e
~ i . E 4 e. +. ". ~ ~. A: 1
a
E
4 ~ i i ~~
~ ~~
~I I ' bra ~ m~ ~'
! ~ ~P~~ r''
j
~e~ ~B it ~ i
5
-- A -----"--- •ewwA ~..~ -
.A ~~ =LOCUST GROVE RD
i
~ Ea a
I
q •a
~ i ~ 1e~~ '4. iFA
- {. e
3NIT°~FI~e~A
L~ ~'..~~-.-i~~~1rr
s
~~''`` ~{
~ ~ ~ ~Illt~
'
{`
t
G
~~]•~T
~~~~ _~~~i~~II
•
EF g5 A 1 f l
IS?A;xig~~~, ~Fg.~ ~~ " @ ~~' ~~~~y$$$i'~ ~~4A C :.w ,risks I
I { , I d
eli^ Eg•S:9 ~ pI ~$~ A~~IEC ~ K.. "` R e ii i~
e 5
~
kc
^ Cl
~~ .
~
y
~ ~
'
~
g
a
-
y
f.9
$ 4
~
@~
i` i• G
9 P 2' " "a
"F E) jE iE I Et I
i
~
"
.
ro
41~,~.?#~!
~ ~ 4 ~.~~~ a ~i~• tFf,~
e tli~ii I'~ E E g~E 81
b i9""
Es
~~~ -
~
~
Et [' 1
~~~~ IE
y
~ °~i~! eiE i 9~~SAA~°
; iEiz~9~
8E°
o
I~
B
S
3
~
~
~
, ~
s `~
~~1" E °~"~I
~ 41D x
"- ~-a E
-~ .ze^=i a ~~i~ 0
m b~
i
5
N tp
(e
f f f
E
v
g
~ 3i i i 8@° 8Ef ~. ~~lE 3 ;DEB§od +[~
' i "3 x gggg •~ a ~~~i ~ °
~IEEI ~E r
~
y
s 6
~ t ~ la'4 :
E R~~ ~~~ kk a
~~~
'' s
T g
e
p
6
E ~ya e~ " p~
a E ~•3 ~'
~ s
x
@
s °[ n
S ~: .$F a -:~ ~ ~
R c 'o
THE cemiN6 EnreE. Ec
_ ELf%1E9N6 NEA[%IWS ESEATES flUBNV~JON
~ PRELIMINAitY PLAT
d
ma
OFLariaca'+~swoao~m~a+
oiv
7o
,.~L .
r . a ~aes~
u
N
s escn o, oewmn w 5(3C1'ION et, Til~R1EBM
~~
~~ ~ ~1.~ PRELIMINARY PLAT "~
T~/
C'~T
THE CImING EDGE, LC. nD w. MrN1RL4N Ro.
MERIn1AN, ID. 89842
2D6 887 5820 PH.
208 687 6950 qUI
May 20, 2003 ~ ".
• ~:.
Re; The Blooming Meadows Estates !
pear ACHD Commissooners: '
This is a request for ACHD not to require sidewalks on Cad's way on ttie inside of the oop as d is
unlikely anyone would have an occasion to walk in this area.
Sincerely,
Cad Reiierrnan
Owner of The Blooming Meadows Esiates
APPLICANT'S LETTER
~•d neco yaw any aen wonsnn uew~aaiaal t.le~
d[~=lt EO 6t FeW
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action: A Commissioner, a memberof 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 an originally. It 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.
Request for Reconsideration
11
Law offices
SHERER & WYNKOOP, LLP
Stephen T. Sherer 730 N. Main Street
David E. Wynkoop P.O. Box 31
Attorneys at Law Meridian, Idaho 83680.2604
June 5, 2003
Meridian City Council
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: MPP03-012/MAZ03-011/MCUP03-022
Blooming Meadows Subdivision
Dear Council Members:
PAZ Com~'^-
(~-5-0~
~,ECEIVE~I
,1L~ 0 5 2003
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY rI_FRK nFFI~'F
My name is Steve Sherer and I reside at 2090 Star Lane, Meridian, Idaho 83642. I am
writing to contest approval of the application by Applicant, The Cutting Edge, LC for
preliminary plat, conditional use, annexation and rezone approval for the Blooming Meadows
Subdivision. My objections are based on the following:
I. Traffic Issues
While this matter was approved by the Ada County Highway District, the
ACHD did recognize some issues that will be created with the additional traffic. The
facts are as follows:
1. At full build-out, Locust Grove Road between McMillan and
Ustick is scheduled to be a 3-lane road. All other roads north of Ustick
in the North Meridian Traffic Plan survey will be 5-lane road sections at
full build-out, including but not limited to Meridian Road, Linder Road,
Ten Mile Road, and Black Cat Road. Eagle Road is already a 5-lane
wide road. Locust Grove will not be 5-lanes wide, and is therefore least
able to bear the additional traffic that such a dense proposal would
entail.
2. Traffic Survey -The most recent traffic count on Locust Grove
showed 4,719 cars south of McMillan Road on June 28, 2001. This
count was completed two years ago, prior to the completion of new
subdivisions on Locust Grove north of McMillan, and does not consider
two other very large subdivisions already approved on North Locust
Grove between Ustick and McMillan-the 285 lot Heritage Subdivision,
Meridian City Council -2- June 5, 2003
and the 3271ot Havasu Creek Subdivision, which were approved on
April 17, 2002, and November 6, 2002, respectively.
While I have not done any traffic counts, I can tell you that the past two years the
traffic has increased considerably on Locust Grove Road between Ustick and
McMillan. Two years ago stopping at the end of Star Lane was a formality to obey
the law (there was little traffic to be concerned about). Now it often takes more than a
minute to even pull onto Locust Grove Road. I can only guess what it will be like
when Heritage Commons and Havasu Creek subdivisions, and their over 600
residences, are fully built-out. Additionally, on the east side of Locust Grove, the
Planning and Zoning Commission approved on November 6, 2002, a Meridian
School District Educational Campus. That campus already has two high school
charter schools, the effects of which have not been fully felt since one school has just
been recently completed and will be opened in the fall of 2003. With the addition of
an elementary school, two senior high professional technical schools and a district
administration building, the amount of traffic will probably double from that addition
alone, since the school district's use will be efficient, and therefore intense.
II. Incomyatibilitytyith Current Area
All of the sites surrounding the proposed Blooming Meadows
Subdivision are Zoned R-4 or higher. The R-8 and R-15 proposals by the
applicant are out of line with the surrounding area.
III. Equitable Considerations
Other developers in the North Meridian Planning Area have included
higher density, multi-family units. However, they have balanced their
multi-family units in an integrated manner. For instance, the Keltic
Heights Subdivision is 929 residential lots, with its 585 unit multi-family
apartments. Lochsa Falls Subdivision includes 862 single-family dwellings
with 171 multi-family dwellings in its development. Additionally, these
subdivisions are not on Locust Grove, but tie into the 5-lane arterials
previously identified.
Blooming Meadows' proposal seeks simply to maximize profit on 11-1/2 acres
of currently rural land. It offers nothing to the community, other than a dense, low-
income subdivision, which will inordinately burden the residents of Heritage
Commons, Havasu Creek, and other users of Locust Grove Road. Because the R-8 and
R-15 designations are out of step with the surrounding areas, and because Locust Grove
is not designed to handle the volume of traffic that subdivisions of this density would
engender, the application should be denied.
Finally, the portion of Locust Grove Road between Ustick and McMillan is not listed in
the Capital Improvements Plan. This means that even though Locust Grove is slated to be a S-
lane arterial, that improvement (from its current two-lane status) is not contemplated within the
Meridian City Council -3-
June 5, 2003
next five years. Thus, after Havasu Creek and Heritage Commons Subdivisions are completed
and after school district projects are completed, and, Locust Grove will remain a 2-lane road.
As noted in the Ada County Highway District fmdings:
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.
A.C.H.D. Report, p. 5.
Clearly, the developments along Locust Grove must be evaluated together, not
individually, to assess the traffic impact. Considering the current status of Locust Grove and its
future as a 3-lane minor arterial, development denser than R-4 should be placed onto major
arterials which will be able to carry the traffic flow in a reasonable manner. While it is
inevitable that the site will be developed, it should be developed as an R-4 or better site,
compatible with those developments around it, and in light of the existing road and traffic
conditions.
Attached to this objection is a copy of the vicinity map submitted by the Meridian
Planning and Zoning.
Sincerely,
SHERER & WYNKOOP, LLP
4~
Stephen T. Sherer
STS/jhn
Enclosure
s uvzaizuur is:uv rna
~~
~~~
anuss4
MCHIUTAN
1~
'~ ~F ~4
S /T~
~~
'f2wT
?~c.~,T
~4
J
VICINITY MAP
~~[