Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgency CommentsProject: Castle Rock Location: west side of S. Eagle Road, between Amity & Lake Hazel. Applications: annexation, preliminary plat and planned unit development Highlights of Proposed Development: AZ of 224.29 acres to R-2 (45 acres) and R-8 (179 acres). PP consisting of 794 single-family residential building lots and 99 common/other lots on 182.08 acres in the proposed R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. PUD for deviations from the R-8 district requirements pertaining to lot size, street frontage, and building setbacks. The gross residential density is 4.38 dwelling units per acre (overall). Reductions to the minimum dimensional standards proposed in the R-8 zone: Castle Rock Dimensional Standards Street setback* Livi setback* Side setback Rear setback Minimum lot size (square footage) Minimum living area (square footage) Minimum lot frontage (measured at garage front setback line) Minimum lot frontage (measured at the *Measured from back of walk * * Measured from edge of all( Vi UDC 10 10 10 15 20 20 N/A 20 N/A N/A 10 12 N/A N/A 20 12 5 5 5 5 12 12 N/A 12 4,200 3,800 3,100 4100015,000 1,400 1,000 900 NA 50 46 40 NA 30 130 40 40 Proposed site amenities are as follows: 1) The applicant is providing 39.86 acres of usable open space, which equals approximately 21.7% of the total development area. A minimum of 10% open space is required; every additional 5% of open space that is provided on the site counts toward the number of required amenities. In this case, 11.7% open space is provided above the required amount, which counts as 2 amenities. 2) Various pathways and micro -paths are proposed within the common areas, some of which connect to the multi -use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek and others run along the Beasley Lateral. 3) A neighborhood park is proposed on Lot 1, Block 17 that is proposed to contain a gazebo, tot lot, and basketball court. 4) A gazebo is proposed within the common area on Lot 27, Block 3. 5) A pocket park is proposed on Lot 18, Block 38 that is proposed to contain a tot lot. 6) A pocket park is proposed on Lot 27, Block 43 that is proposed to contain a tot lot and pond. 7) Picnic tables are proposed throughout the common areas. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing an 8.8 acre park that is intended to be dedicated to the City as part of this development. ACHD has submitted conditions of approval for this project that are included in Exhibit B that include the following: 1) A signal will be required at the signal Taconic/Eagle intersection when si 4/15/2008 g warrants are met based on signal analysis submitted to the District for each final plat after the final platting of the 400th lot. 2) The Amity/Eagle intersection will need to be fully improved as identified in the District's Capital Improvement Plan prior to the final platting of the 127th lot. The Council remanded this project back to the Commission and asked for the Commission to specifically consider/review the following items: 1) Make a new recommendation based on the revised plat; 2) Consider the traffic impact of this development on Eagle Road between the site and the interchange, specifically the EagleNictory intersection; 3) Consider not only the maintenance but the ownership of the coved areas, and/or who has the right to do (or not do) what within the coved areas; 4) Reconsideration of the revised densities in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and the recently approved South Meridian Area Plan; and 5) Consider requiring S. Carlisle Way to stub to the east boundary across the Ten Mile Creek for interconnectivity upon future development of the property across the creek. Elevations: Yes. The applicant has included a Product Exhibit that depicts the location of the different housing types proposed within the development along with common areas and cove areas. The applicant is proposing to construct custom homes on the 7 lots in the R-2 zone that are included in the Castle Rock plat that border Blackrock Subdivision on the north. The applicant is proposing four different types of single-family detached dwelling units within this development to promote diversity and choice in housing types. Other: The DA includes the following: • The only allowed uses on this property are as follows: single-family detached homes and allowed accessory uses in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. • A 10-foot wide multi -use pathway shall be constructed on this site on the south side of the Ten Mile Creek • The applicant shall construct a minimum 8.8 acre neighborhood park on this site and dedicate said park to the City. The neighborhood park shall be constructed and accepted by the City prior to the 400th building permit being issued for this development. • Construction materials used on the wall surfaces of all structures shall incorporate a minimum of 3 different types of materials. Materials may include the following: vertical and horizontal siding, board and batten, shingle, shake, hardboard, scallops, stucco, brick, or stone (per the Castle Rock Design Guidelines). Balustrades shall not be considered an acceptable material as they are an architectural feature, not a wall surface material. • All structures shall substantially comply with the building elevations submitted with this application The Parks Department has submitted analysis of the proposed park site as follows: The new park location is along the bench between Castle Rock Subdivision and Black Rock Subdivision. While the new site is not as centrally located within the project, it is more central to the overall square mile and provides some unique opportunities based on topography not found at other Meridian parks. The new location has fewer building lots adjacent to it and provides better visibility and landmark quality. Commission Recommendation: Summary of 3/8/2008 Commission Public Hean # 4/15/2008 i. In favor: Gerry Armstrong, Providence ii. In opposition: Martin Fabricius, Carol Jarvis, Ray Eggleston, Justin Thiel, Don Cantrell, Tim Foster, Tom Sylvester, and Tim Taylor. (The following people signed up in opposition of the project but did not offer testimony: Pat Fabricius, Dan Lisberry and another person whose name is illegible.) iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Russ Fulcher, Larry Wickham, and Debbie Wickham, Jerry Smith, and Martin Fabricius (all in opposition). Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The Commission discussed each of the outstanding issues from the Council meeting on January 22nd; ii. Landscaping and maintenance responsibilities of the coved/public use areas on individual homeowners' lots; iii. The depth and flow of the lateral and pond adjacent to the tot lot in relation to children's' safety; iv. The Use and Benefit Agreement for the Village units allowing property owners to use the adjacent side yards for a larger yard area; v. The extension of S. Carlisle Way to the east, stubbing at the canal. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Added a condition of approval for the applicant to provide a 42-foot wide easement for the extension of S. Carlisle Way to the east property boundary for access to the Fulcher pro ert ii Added a condition of approval for the applicant to work with staff to relocate the tot lot depicted on Lot 27, Block 43 away from the lateral and pond; Added a condition of approval for the applicant to install fencing along the south property boundary adjacent to the Don Cantrell property (parcel #R1835500100); Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Council should determine if an easement for the future extension of S. Carlisle Way is appropriate or if Carlisle should be extended as a public street to the east property boundary with development of the subdivision. ii. The applicant has not yet contacted staff for the relocation of the tot lot depicted on Lot 27, Block 43, away from the lateral and pond. Written Testimony since Staff Report: i• Sherrie Ewing sent an e-mail expressing concerns about the inability of the road system to handle the anticipated traffic from the development. ii. The Parks and Recreation Department noting the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Notes: 4/15/20oR WESTERN REGION OFFICE G-4TY OF MERIDIAN INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY r:lTIY rl F:pK 0F!��r'F 555 SOUTH COLE ROAD • PO. BOX 7608 • BOISE, ID 83707 (208) 377-6000 • FAX (208) 377-6867 To Planning and Zoning, Intermountain Gas Company has received your letter of application. In order to best serve this development Intermountain Gas does require that a 5' minimum utility easement along the interior lot lines and a 10' minimum utility easement along all right of ways or private drive. The private drive of the development would also be required to include a utility easement for Intermountain Gas to encroach into with the gas lines. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or concerns please contact Mishelle Singleton at 377-6863. Sincerely, Mishelle Singleton Engineering Tech cc: Roger Phillips 18 March 2008 City of Meridian City Clerk's Office William G. Berg Jr. 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 / i t 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 :,. UE1VEe 9. MAR 2 12008 GITY OF ME ILDIAN CITY f71 FF cpc F RE: AZ 07-016, PP 07-020 & PUD 07-001/REVISED Landscape Plan for Castle Ron ck Dear Will: The District's Ten Mile Drain courses through this proposed project. The District's easement for the Ten Mile Drain at this location is a minimum of one hundred feet (100% fifty feet (50) to each side of the centerline. Any landscaping within this easement requires a License Agreement for encroachment. However please contact the District directly to verify the width of easement necessary to operate, maintain and repair the Ten Mile Drain All trees, and drip line must be outside of the eighteen foot (18') maintenance roadway. . Sincerely, Bill Henson Asst. VVater Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District BH/dbg C: File - Office/Shop APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 ,ok pri1. 2, 2 0i,.,i�, TO: Meridian City Council / Planning & Zoning FROM: Monte & Jackie Anderson 1730 E. Suzan Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 IY ,.J_i�,.•� �4F AAq o � 2008 ,?tY Of Mel . ' t,X c1ediala rk t3 SUBJECT: Application AZ07-016 Providence Development Group LLC Hubble Development of the Castle Rock Subdivision We own five acres located in the Uppiano Subdivision that is southwest of where the proposed Hubble development is being proposed. It's our understanding the proposed plan consists of 880 homes on 18 1. 11 acres for an overall average of 4.86 homes / acre (including roads, etc.). We also believe that it maybe as high as 8 homes per acre in some parts of the subdivision. We call this low income housing and we strongly believe that this proposed growth due to the amount and type of houses does not support a healthy and strong community for the following five major reasons: 1- Roads are too congested and not designed to handle this amount of growth 2- Increase school requirements which are currently over capacity 3- Property values or future development will be dramatically reduced 4- Quality of life can be impacted with the potential of trespassing & higher crime 5- Agriculture zoning and livestock / irrigation potential conflicts We have nothing against development of property for affordable living. However, we believe that there should be a mix of various housing. Hubble Homes already has precedence in our area where we are watching box style houses being developed that we are sure will be rental houses in the near future. We searched the internet on Hubble Homes and found no favorable comments on the livability of Hubble Subdivisions. This confirmed our views of Hubble Subdivisions and the aftermath that follows. Based on our five reasons above and the precedence Hubble Homes and other low income homes have in our surrounding neighborhoods, we are strongly against this development plan as proposed. We would suggest ensuring the roads, schools, property values of neighbors, quality of life and agriculture conflicts are resolved before approval. In addition, we would like to suggest that the development of this land is more mid -range housing to promote a mix of all income levels and affordability. We would also like to suggest architectural standards, lower houses / acre, ability for other builders to purchase lots and build homes that would provide mixed housing. We understand the "country living" will ultimately go away. However, we must manage future growth as responsible citizens, developers and elected political leaders to ensure our infrastructure of roads, schools, property investments, quality of living and zoning does not diminish because of one individual's profits & promises. 8 Monte derson "'",' ill!illll Ill�F I IIIIIi � ,null .I lill IlUllo�� y ..IIL. allll„ o'lll I!'illl'I��ily'o... March 27, 2008 TO: Providence Development Group LLC. 701 S. Allen St. # 104 Meridian, ID 83642 SUBJECT: MPP-07-020MOD 7804 W. Overland Road C::,"Ar")l d4. I'91r,:;µCr:r;:, President Sherry R, Huber, 1st Vice President Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President John S. Franden, Commissioner Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner I VE y /DPP o ; 2008 On December 14, 2007, the Ada County Highway District Commissioners acted on the Castle Rock Subdivision. The conditions and requirements also apply to MPP-07-020MOD. • Prior to final approval you will need to submit construction plans to the ACHD Development Review Department to insure compliance with the conditions identified above or for traffic impact fee assessment. This is a separate review process that requires direct plans submittal to the Development Review staff at the Highway District. A traffic impact fee will be assessed by ACHD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building permit. Contact ACHD Planning & Development Services at 387-6170 for information regarding impact fees. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact this office at (208) 387-6174. 9er rr1 Right -of -Way and Development Services CC: Project File City of Meridian Hubble Homes Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 2O8-387-6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achd.ada.id.us Appeal of Staff Decision: The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the final decision made by the ROWDS Manager when it is alleged that the ROWDS Manager did not properly apply this section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an error of fact or law, abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or enforcement of the ACHD Policy Manual. a. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be charged the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs. b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the Secretary of Highway Systems, which must be filed within ten (10) working days from the date of the decision that is the subject of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall refer to the decision being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address and telephone number and state the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall include a written summary of the provisions of the policy relevant to the appeal and/or the facts and law relied upon and shall include a written argument in support of the appeal. The Commission shall not consider a notice of appeal that does not comply with the provisions of this subsection. Time to Reply: The ROWDS Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may during such time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also consider and/or modify the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply and any modifications to the decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant prior to the Commission hearing on the appeal. d. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the appeal will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular meeting to be held within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of the ROWDS Manager's reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being appealed, the notice of appeal and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at least one (1) week prior to the hearing. e. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affirm or reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision being appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence presented at the hearing. ............._.�.....__............................................... Development Process checklis-...t ®Submit a development application to a City or to the County ®The City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD ®The ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review ®The Planning Review Division will do one of the following: ❑Send a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific requirements at this time. ®Send a "Comply With" letter to the applicant stating that if the development is within a platted subdivision or part of a previous development application and that the site specific requirements from the previous development also apply to this development application. ❑Write a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy. ❑Write a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy. ®The Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports. ❑For ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Review" or "Comply With" letter: The applicant should submit one set of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Review Division for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee calculation.) The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way, including, but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts. ❑Pay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval. DID YOU REMEMBER: Construction (Zone) ❑ Driveway or Property Approach(s) Submit a "Driveway Approach Request" form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval. ❑ Working in the ACHD Right -of -Way Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application" to ACHD Construction — Permits along with: Traffic Control Plan An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50' or you are placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt. Construction (Subdivisions) ❑ Sediment & Erosion Submittal At least one week prior to setting up a Pre -Con an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, must be turned into ACHD Construction — Subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Drainage Division. ❑ Idaho Power Company Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre -Con being scheduled. ❑ Final Approval from Development Services ACHD Construction — Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre -Con.