Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-13 Elizabeth Koeckeritz Law Koeckeritz Law KOECKERITZ LAW, PLLC Elizabeth Koeckeritz 3058 N. Selkirk Drive 208-473-1964 Boise, Idaho 83702 elizabethCeklawidaho.com May 13, 2021 Mayor and City Council City of Meridian c/o Planning Staff and City Clerk 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Via email to: cityclerk@meridiancity.org RE: Skybreak Neighborhood, H-2020-0217 Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, I represent the White family who reside at 3804 E. Vantage Point Lane, Meridian Idaho ("White Residence"). The White Residence is located to the south of and adjacent to the proposed Skybreak Neighborhood development in Meridian, Idaho, H-2020-0127 ("Skybreak Subdivision"). More specifically, the White Residence is located directly south of Skybreak Subdivision Lot 80 ("Lot 80"), as that lot is depicted on the Narrative filed January 7, 2021 with the City of Meridian Community Development department. I write in support of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City staff recommendation that the annexation and preliminary plat of the Skybreak Subdivision be denied. (Staff report, p. 18.) Although the White family understands that development will occur on the property to the north of their residence, they simply ask that the development occur within the stated goals of the Meridian comprehensive plan and the Meridian zoning code. As proposed, the Skybreak Subdivision does neither. Meridian City Code 11-5B-3E requires the Council to make specific findings in order to grant and an annexation or rezone. The Skybreak Neighborhood, as proposed, does not meet these findings. 1. The map amendment does not comply with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. As discussed in detail in the Staff Report and the letter from Larry White dated March 12, 2021 and attached hereto (the "White Letter"), the map amendment does not comply with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The development does not provide adequate transitions between land uses (see goals 3.07.01A, 3.07.00), it does not include adequate infrastructure (see goal 2.02.0I CA), and it overburdens public services (see goals 3.01.01A, 3.03.03, 3.03.03F). 2. The amendment does not comply with the purpose statement for the proposed district. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates the property directly adjacent to the White Residence as Medium Density Residential. The developer is asking that the property be zoned R-15, which is High Density Residential, which is a designation "for the development of multi-family homes in areas where high levels of urban services are provided and where residential gross densities exceed twelve dwelling units per acre." (Comp. Plan, 3- 12.) The developer's proposed zoning is incompatible with the FLUM, and is only being proposed to circumvent the requirements of a more appropriate zoning designation. In fact, given the large lot sizes in the Vantage Pointe subdivision, and the stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan to provide appropriate transitional densities, the most appropriate zoning for the Skybreak Neighborhood where it abuts the Vantage Pointe subdivision is Low Density Residential District(R-2). 3. The amendment is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The amendment is materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as Fire response times are outside of stated goals, which response times are exacerbated by non- conforming private roads. In addition, as discussed below, the local schools are nearing or over-capacity and much of this development does not have sidewalks on which children and other residents can safely walk and ride bikes. 4. The map amendment will result in an adverse impact delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts. As discussed in the Staff Report and explained in further detail in the White Letter, the Fire department response is currently outside of response time goals. Although a new Meridian Fire Station is anticipated for construction in 2023, at this time it has not yet been funded. Additionally, the local high school is currently over-capacity, and the local junior high and elementary schools are reaching capacity. Even assuming that there will be fewer students in this subdivision than other similar subdivisions, the number of students generated will likely cause the local schools to exceed capacity. By the time the Skybreak Subdivision is constructed the problem will have worsened, as several other subdivisions in the area have already been approved but not fully constructed yet. The school district specifically asks that you "encourage the developer to provide safe walkways, bike paths and pedestrian access." West Ada School District(WASD) letter, dated March 8, 2021. By eliminating sidewalks through a large portion of this subdivision, the developer has failed to provide such safe walkways. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is not in the best interest of city. As set forth in detail in the Staff Report, this annexation and subdivision does not comply with the comprehensive plan, is materially detrimental to the health, safety and welfare, will result in an adverse delivery of services and, for these reasons, is not in the best interest of the city. In addition to supporting Staff comments concerning the subdivision and its failure to meet the City's comprehensive plan and development code,the White family has the additional comments. 1. Transition Areas. The side-yard setback between Lot 80 and the White Residence is a mere 15 feet. While this setback is in excess of that required by City code, it is no way a Elizabeth Koeckeritz • 208 473-1964 3058 N. Selkirk Drive, Boise, Idaho 83702 elizabethCeklawidaho.com "significant buffer"between the proposed home on Lot 80 and the White Residence. (See Supplement to Applicant's Response to Staff Report, dated March 22, 2021.) This lack of buffer fails to meet Comprehensive Plan goal 3.01.01A, which requires "all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices." The developer has agreed to increase the rear setbacks for lots 77-79 to 30 feet. The White family requests that the sideyard setback of lot 80 also be increased to 30 feet, to match the setbacks of the adjacent properties. Further, the White's request that the south rear year setback be increased to 160 feet. The White's agree with staff s assessment that in this area of the development, "the lots should be at least one-acre in this area and have property line lengths that better orient to adjacent off-site properties." (Staff report,p. 8.) As presented, they do not. COMMON LOT (FOR PATHWAY) S7AFLTSRRX4i4 a TS•PR 5ETBALN _ -- - - b n _ b � O -I _ HOUSE=375P HOUSE-3450 — _-_ SQUARE FOOT SQUARE FOOT NOIN-BUILD ARt:A LOT 7T � LOT 78 LOT 74 O 6 11p-0' LOT W VV0S7iM &, REAR 3E7BAgC LOTS 75, 76, 77 SETBACKS: LOT 74 SETBACKS: FRONT YARD SETBACK=20' NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK=T SIDE YARD SETBACK=14' SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK=15 REAR YARD SETBACK=3W NORTH REAR YARD SETBACK=45' SOUTH REAR YARD SETBACK=110' WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK=10' Skybreak—Narrative Additionally, the White family was initially excited to learn that the homes in lots 77-80 were to be single-story homes, as that is a better transition from their current neighborhood to the Skybreak Subdivision. The developer's March 22, 2021 letter clarified that the houses were, in fact, planned to be two stories, which is a far less desirable transition. 2. Farr LateraUOpen Space/Amenities. The pathway along the Farr lateral is located on the side of the development where there is no current legal access, unless the developer builds a bridge across the canal. This acts as a barrier for residents to use and access this portion of the development, and raises questions as to when it will actually be developed. Although the developer asserts that he will obtain legal access to Vantage Pointe Road, at this time it is unknown if this access will ever be granted. Likewise, this section (Phase 7) includes a significant amount of open space, which includes the Farr lateral pathway and two green areas. Including these areas in the development's open space calculations or as "amenities" is misleading as these "amenities" are not accessible by residents of the subdivision. Elizabeth Koeckeritz • 208 473-1964 3058 N. Selkirk Drive, Boise, Idaho 83702 elizabethCeklawidaho.com 3. Older Community. The developer maintains that the impact on local schools will be minimal as the development caters to an older aged community. To ensure less of an impact on school services and to lessen safety concerns of kids on bikes on streets (since there are no sidewalks), the property could be deed-restricted as a 55+property. The developer has not chosen to do so. Further, despite being labeled an "older aged community,"the development does not include any clubhouse or gathering place for its older residents as is typical in a 55+ property. 4. Alternative Compliance. The White family urges you to uphold the Director's decision to deny the private street and alternative compliance applications. The developer has requested a gated development of more than 50 units and for common driveways off private streets, contrary to Meridian development code. Requests for alternative compliance are allowed only when certain conditions exist(e.g. special topography, space limitations, unusually shaped lots, safety considerations, conflicting design standards from other regulatory agencies, or"new urbanism" designs that promote walkability). UDC 11-5B-5. The developer has not made a colorable argument that any of these conditions exist, and his request may be denied on that basis alone. If the developer makes the necessary initial showing, the Director must then determine that 1) strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or 2) the alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and 3) the alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Because the developer failed to meet either of these prongs, the Director did not err when he denied the developer's application for alternative compliance. Please uphold the Director's decision and deny the request for alternative compliance. The White family requests that this development be denied because it fails to comply with the Meridian comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The White family hopes to work with the developer in the future to help craft a development that better meets the needs of the community as a whole and the Meridian city code. Sincerely, Elizabeth Koeckeritz Elizabeth Koeckeritz • 208 473-1964 3058 N. Selkirk Drive, Boise, Idaho 83702 elizabethCeklawidaho.com March 12, 2021 City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 104 Meridian, ID 83642 cityclerk@meridiancity.org Attention: Planning and Zoning Commission Subject: Skybreak ALT,AZ, PP, PS H-2020-0127 Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to submit our opposition to the current design of the Skybreak development. I live in the Vantage Pointe subdivision with my wife and son. With the crazy rate of growth throughout the valley, we understand that houses will soon be built in the property north of our home. We are not opposed to new development, but we have the same expectations with new growth as stated in the Livable Community section of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan): "While development is expected within the Area of City Impact, a maze of monotonous expansion is not desired, either. It is essential to find a balance that protects and preserves Meridian's natural resources, agricultural heritage, and open spaces, while supporting the need for new development and sustainable provision of services." Unfortunately,the current design for the Skybreak subdivision does not meet the city's vision, and it fails to meet several other goals and requirements in the Comp Plan and in the Meridian City Code. Here are some examples: • Land use: The Comp Plan Section 3.03.03D requires "all development to be consistent with Future Land Use Map designations for the property." The current development does not comply with the Comp Plan. The FLUM identifies the Skybreak property as low density residential south of the Farr Lateral and medium density residential north of the Farr Lateral. The current application increases densities at both locations: from low to medium density residential south of the Farr Lateral and from medium to high density residential (R-15) on the eastern portion of the property north of the Farr Lateral. Commissioners, please enforce the Comp Plan and require this development meet the FLUM. • Sidewalks: The Comp Plan Section 3.03.03G requires "urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities." Comp Plan Section 2.02.01C requires "all new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets, consistent with the Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan." RIP requires sidewalks for all complete streets and recommends a minimum 5' sidewalk width. The current development does not comply with the Comp Plan. Skybreak plans to construct several streets without sidewalk (Private Streets A, L, M, N, O, P, Q and R). Commissioners, please require sidewalks on all streets in this development as required by the Comp Plan. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission March 12, 2021 Page 2 • Natural resources: One of the Comp Plan's stated goals (4.05.00) is to "preserve,protect, enhance, and wisely use natural resources." It requires development "protect and enhance existing waterways, groundwater, wetlands, wildlife habitat, air, soils, and other natural resources." Section 3.07.0113 encourages "land uses and site designs that do not harm natural systems and resources" and Section 4.05.02C encourage "the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design." The current development does not comply with the Comp Plan. Ten Mile Creek routes along the bottom the hillside slope on the eastern border of the development. We have witnessed a variety of wildlife along the hillside and creek corridor in the last few months, including deer,foxes, coyotes, pheasants, hawks, geese and ducks. The current development eradicates the slope and wildlife habit and does nothing to mitigate the development's impacts to the creek corridor. As noted in the Comp Plan, "Meridian has seen much of its natural resources change over the years from agricultural open spaces to a growing city. Providing and protecting unique sites and resources will assure the quality of life that the residents have come to know and expect." Commissioners, please require the development meet the Comp Plan goals for natural resources by preserving and protecting this unique wildlife area along the hillside and Ten Mile Creek. • Transitions between land uses: The Comp Plan Section 3.07.01A requires "all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices." It also states that in transition from low residential land use "developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources, recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area." The development does not meet the Comp Plan's intent for transitions. We live at the east end of Vantage Pointe subdivision just south of Skybreak Lots 79 and 80. The transition that the developer is currently offering our home is a 30' setback to the south border of Lot 79 and a 15' setback on Lot 80. Their explanation for reducing the Lot 80 setback to 15' is because the home is rotated to orient the back of home to the east. As we recently learned in obtaining a building permit for an out-building, Ada County requires a 25' setback adjacent to properties bordering subdivision regardless of the structure orientation. Recognizing the value of our view, the developer is also offering—currently—a 110' setback on Lot 80 from its east border. I emphasize currently because when I met with the developer at our home a year ago, we understood the building setback would be approximately 160', which leaves the same building area as the adjacent Lots 77, 78 and 79. Finally, a two-story home is planned directly north of our home. There is no transition in height planned, even though 85%of the homes in Skybreak are single-story. Commissioners, please require the developer to improve transitions to meet the Comp Plan requirements. We are happy to work with the developer on this, and would like the south setback for Lot 80 increased to match Lot 79,the east setback increased to 160', to match the buildable area of Lots 77, 78 and 79, and transition • Public safety: In order to be annexed,the Meridian City Code 11-513-3 requires the proposed development"shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare." The current development does not comply with City Code for annexation. In 2019,we witnessed a wild fire on the Skybreak property directly north of our home caused by farming operations. The wind-aided fire traveled extremely fast to our fence line, burning a few feet of lawn before it was stopped with quick action by the Meridian Fire Department (MFD). With the winds that we experience on the rim and the dense housing proposed by the development, a fast fire Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission March 12, 2021 Page 3 response is essential to contain fires before they spread to other homes and properties. MFD's latest summary report cautioned "extended response times to the east side of the development". They noted that the narrow, gated streets "will cause delays". Having first-hand experience with a rapidly moving fire on the, we take MFD's comments literally and believe that the current design of Skybreak is materially detrimental to public safety. Commissioner, please deny the current annexation request as required by City Code. • Schools: Another requirement for annexation according to Meridian City Code 11-513-3, is that the development "shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts". Skybreak is located at the southeast boundary of the West Ada School District. According to the district,the subdivision is expected to add 270 students. The three schools in the development's area are currently near or over-capacity. In their agency comments, West Ada indicated their willingness to accept a land donation for a future school. Without a new school, Skybreak results in an adverse impact to the delivery of services by the West Ada School District. Commissioner, please deny the current annexation request as required by City Code. Skybreak development fails to meet many of the Comp Plan's goals and requirements and fails to meet the City Code requirements for annexation. Commissioners,we are counting on you to acknowledge these failures,and others identified through this hearing process,and reject the development application. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, qa4 3804 E.Vantage Pointe Lane Meridian, ID 83642