Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Christine Donnell Shaun Wardle Charles M. Rountree olfe;;dli:J:n Ct:IlY1IIKALL (~~3-,fãJajIlŒ'i-SlRl3 MAYOR Taouny de Weerd PIffiBI!1(WtIIftKKS B BlIlDDIIII<Ð BI!!tAnfIIIiIII (~n2=H""'ß_~1 IDAHO LFB!IAIDBIW\i1!IImi] /T (~~..nJ¡J4~5 STAFF REPORT UPDATE: Transmittal Date: December 9, 2004 P&Z Hearing Date: December 14, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council Steve Siddoway, Principal Planner ~ RECEIVED DEC I 0 2004 From: Re: Kingsbridge Subdivision City Of Meridian City Clerk Office . Annexation and Zoning of 76.777 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Low Density Residential District, by Vision First LLC. (File No. AZ-O4-023). . Preliminary Plat Approval ofT':!€) Hl:Iflàrecl TiiÍi'fj" SeVeR (237) Two Hundred Nineteen (219) Building Lots and Twenty Three (23) Common Lots on 76.777 Acres in a Proposed R-4 Zone, by Vision First LLC. (File No. PP-O4-030). . Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Residential Planned Development of Single-Family Homes with reduced ~ street frontage, and exceeding the maximum block length, by SWI Associates, LLC. (File No. CUP-O4-026). 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 UPDATE The Kingsbridge Subdivision applications were considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission at a public hearing on 9/16/04. On 1017104 the Commission adopted Findings for denial of the plat and on 10/21/04 the Commission refused to consider the applicant's request for reconsideration. On 11/3/04 the Council granted the applicant's appeal, and requested that all three applications be noticed for a new hearing date to be heard together. When granting the appeal, the Council found that one of the primary reasons for denial-legal issues surrounding the developability of the land based on prior Ada County action-was invalid and should not have been considered as a reason for denial. The applicant has submitted revised plans in response to the reasons for denial stated by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Staff has already prepared a detailed staff report on the project AZ.O4-023. PP-04-030. CUP-O4-032 Kin"ocidg'Up,",' Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: December 14, 2004 Page 2 (transmittal date September 13,2004) with proposed findings for approval. You also have the recommendations from the P&Z Commission for denial. This report will analyze the changes made by the applicant on the revised plans, in light of the reasons stated by the Commission for their recommendation of denial. a. The outstanding legal issues may place the City in the position for a potential lawsuit. Without a legal decision stating that there is no need for the Dartmoor property to remain as open space until March of 2009, the Commission is not willing to annex or plat the property. The applicant has provided a letter from L. Edward Miller, Givens Pursley, dated September 16, 2004 for the Council's consideration. City legal counsel agrees that prior Ada County actions regarding the open space should not have a bearing on the City's decision on whether to annex or not. Upon annexation, the property would be under the City's jurisdiction and ordinances and the County's ordinances and conditions of approval would no longer apply. At the appeal hearing on November 3, as noted above, the Council found that one of the reasons for denial regarding legal issues surrounding the developability of the land should not have been considered as a reason for denial. The appeal was granted. Given the City's current legal opinion on this issue, staff recommends deleting Site Specific Condition #2 of the Preliminary Plat (found on pages 7 and 8 of the original staff report). b. The plat needs to provide a better transition from the surrounding large lot subdivisions, both in terms of increasing the perimeter lot sizes and reducing the overall density. The revised plat proposes to increase lot sizes on the project perimeter, eliminate all substandard lot sizes, and reduce the overall density. Increased lot sizes on proiect perimeter: Opponents at the P&Z hearing noted that many of the lots around the perimeter were only 7,000 s.f. In response, the applicant proposes the following modifications: . Remove two lots from the east boundary, making the average lot size 8,866 s.f. (minimum 8,000) along that edge. . Remove two lots from the south boundary along the Ten Mile Feeder Canal, making the average lot size 8,957 s.f. (minimum 8,117). . Remove one lot from the knuckle along the southeast edge, making the average lot size 11,151 s.f. (minimum 10,742) at that point. . Remove one lot from the south boundary along Zaldia Lane, making the average lot size 8,306 s.f. (minimum 8,014). . Remove one lot ftom the west boundary, making the average lot size 16,832 s.f. (minimum 15,996). . Remove four lots from the north boundary, making the average lot size 9,381 s.f. (minimum 8,342). Note that these lots are further separated from the neighboring lots by a 22 foot common lot. AZ.04-023. PP-o4-03O, CUP-04'()32 """"'<ids'Up'"" Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: December 14, 2004 Page 3 Eliminate Substandard Lots: The original plat included 110 lots less than 8,000 s.f, The revised plat would remove a total of 18 lots and adjust the lot lines such that all lots are at or over the 8,000 s.f. minimum for the proposed R-4 zone. Reduced Density: The revised plat reduces the number of residential lots by 18; the number of common lots remains the same. The original plat included a total of 237 building lots for an overall gross density of 3.09 dwelling units/acre. The removal of 18 dwelling units would reduce the total number of building lots to 219 for an overall gross density of 2.86 dwelling units/acre. Note that a majority of the subject property is designated for low density (less than 3 dwelling units/acre) on the Comprehensive Plan, while the southernmost portion is designated for medium density (3-8 dwelling units/acre). The overall density of the revised plat is now in line with the more restrictive Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential. c. The issue regarding whether the proposed stub street to the east could ever connect to a public street needs resolution. At the time of the Commission action for denial, ACHD had not yet completed their analysis. The P&Z hearing was on September 16. The ACHD hearing was held on October 6. The final ACHD report requires several new stub streets to be added to the original plat. The revised plat conforms to all of the stub streets as required by ACHD. d. The amount of projected traffic on Dartmoor Drive through the existing subdivision is unacceptable and needs to be decreased. The original plat would have put 800 new vehicle trips per day on Dartmoor Drive through the existing Dartmoor Subdivision per the applicant's traffic study. As a result of opposition to the traffic volumes through Dartmoor Subdivision, the applicant and ACHD staff worked out a revised layout for the extension of Dartmoor Drive. Instead of continuing through to Kingsbridge Drive, the road now ends in a cul-de-sac, Dartmoor Court, with S. Merrivale Way teeing into it. The result of the revised layout is a reduction of trips through Dartmoor Subdivision by half to 400 vehicle trips per day. ADDITIONAL STAFF ANALYSIS: 1. Open Space and Amenities: Staff finds that the applicant has not reduced the amount of open space. In fact, due to the reconfigured park area near Dartmoor Court, the open space has actually increased slightly. The applicant is still offering all of the same amenities, including a community park with a swimming pool, clubhouse, full-size basketball court, tot lot, gazebo, picnic tables, and BBQ stands. Another park with gazebo is located in the northeast portion of the project. A micropath is proposed to connect the two parks. A path and landscaping are proposed along the Ten Mile Feeder canal. Additional amenities include a landscaped entry boulevard, multiple smaller open spaces around the subdivision, a bridge "monument" and ornamental street lights. Detached sidewalks and street trees are also AZ.04-023, PP-o4-03O, CUP-04-032 """"'<ids'Up,",' Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: December 14, 2004 Page 4 proposed throughout the subdivision. Plus, the applicant has offered to increase the minimum house size from 1,400 s.f. to 1,600 s.f. for the subdivision. 2. South Landscape Berm: During the P&Z hearing, the applicant committed to landscaping the buffer along Zaldia Lane with a berm, grass, shrubs, a fence and trees. The revised landscape plan does not yet reflect this commitment. Through a phone conversation with the applicant staff has verified that the applicant does still intend to landscape the buffer as stated. One tricky element to crafting a condition to require the landscaping is that the proposed trees fall in the backyards of the individual lots. The applicant is unable to plant the trees in the common lot due to an irrigation district easement that prohibits trees. Staff has found it difficult to track and enforce a similar condition for trees in backyards in Observation Point Subdivision, because P&Z does not inspect ipdividual residential building lots. In Locust Grove Place, however, a similar requirement for trees on individual lots is being inspected by the building department as part of their occupancy inspections. The only other option would be to widen the common lot enough beyond the easement to accommodate the trees. However, this would likely have the effect of reducing those adjacent lots again to below 8,000 s.f. The applicant should address this issue at the Council hearing, clarify the intended landscaping along Zaldia Lane, and propose a means to get the trees planted-by the developer, not the individual home owner. 3. ACHD Recommendation: The final ACHD report contains a special recommendation to the City of Meridian. The submitted traffic impact study identifies the need for a 5-lane Eagle Road beyond 2020. The current CIP only shows a 3-lane road widening project for Eagle Road in 11 to 15 years. ACHD recommends that the City require the applicant to preserve 48 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Eagle Road. ACHD can only purchase 35 feet of right-of-way at this time based on the current CIP. Staff recommends that the applicant plat the future right-of-way in a separate common lot that can be sold to ACHD at a future date. Note: The required 25-foot street buffer should be beyond the future right-of-way line. The applicant should verifY at the hearing if they can accommodate this recommendation. It is unclear on the revised plat how much right-of-way is being preserved from centerline. Staff does note that the proposed street buffer along Eagle Road is 45 feet wide, so there should be ample preserved space. 4. Access Easement: The existing house on Lot 17, Block 2 (per revised plat) takes access from Zaldia Lane. Staff notes that due to large size of this parcel (2.75 acres) it is likely to be resubdivided and redeveloped at some point in the future. Upon redevelopment, it would be desirable for the lot to have direct access to Kingsbridge Drive. Staff recommends that the applicant add to the plat an access easement for Lot 17 across the common lot (Lot 18, Block 2) so that a connection to Kingsbridge Drive can be made if and when the property redevelops. The ACHD report supports this future access, as well. 5. Findings to Resolve: The following fIndings require some resolution by Council: . Annexation Finding A on pages 3 and 4 of the staffreport state that the Council must make a determination on a one-step density increase. However, with the AZ-Q4'()23, 'P-o4-03O, CUP-Q4.()32 """"brids'U"". Mayor & City Council Hearing Date: December 14, 2004 Page 5 . revised plat less than 3 units/acre, a density increase is no longer requested and the plat complies with the more restrictive designation of Low Density Residential. Annexation Finding D on page 4 addresses how the proposed project relates to the surrounding area. The Council should determine whether or not the changes proposed by applicant (reduced number of lots, increased lot sizes, etc.) are sufficient to address the surrounding compatibility issues. Annexation Finding F on page 5 is regarding whether the proposed development will be hazardous or disturbing to neighboring land uses. The Council should determine whether or not the proposed reduction in traffic on Dartmoor from 800 to 400 vehicles per day is sufficient to make this finding. . 6. Outstanding Issues: Staff anticipates that some of the major issues from the surrounding property owners will include the density of the project and related traffic impacts. Many surrounding property owners are hoping for lot sizes of 1 to 5 acres in size for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends resolving the issues raised in the report, including: . Delete Preliminary Plat Site Specific Condition #2 . Zaldia Lane landscape berm . Right-of-way preservation along Eagle Road . Access Easement for Lot 17, Block 2 . Resolution of required findings Upon resolution of those issues, staff recommends approval with the conditions contained in the original report, and as modified by Council during the discussion of the above issues. AZ.()4-02J, PP-o4-030, CUP.Q4.032 """,,ocidsoUp""