HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Planning
Project: Keego Springs
RECEIVED
APR - 4 2006
Location: east ofN. Black Cat Road, and south of Chin den Road (SH 20/26)
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Applications: annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and variance
Gross Residential Density: 3.53 units per acre (4.69 net density)
Highlights of Proposed Development: Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres to R-8 (Medium-Density
Residential) and Preliminary Plat approval of201 single family residential lots and 9 common lots.
Other: In response to concerns expressed by the Joint School District No.2, the applicant has revised
their proposal to include a school site which wi111ie partly within the proposed subdivision, and partly
within the previously approved Volterra Subdivision.
The DA shall incorporate the following: Prior to submittal ofthe final plat, the applicant shall provide
documentation that the negotiations with Volterra Subdivision for the other portion of the school site have
been finalized and that Joint School District No.2 approves of the configuration provided.
Elevations:
Yes
No
Commission Recommendation: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on
February 2 and March 2, 2006. At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval.
Summary of Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Joann Butler, Jim Howard, Todd Campbell
ii. In opposition: Don Brown, representing Rambo Subdivision
iii. Commenting: Wendell Bigham
iv. Staff presenting application: Josh Wilson
v. Other staff commenting on application: Anna Canning
Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. School site to be shared with property to south (Volterra Subdivision)
ii. Fencing on north boundary
iii. Stub street to property to south (Volterra Subdivision)
Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. ModifY Condition 1.2.6 to read: "The preliminary plat shall be revised to
relocate the amenities, i.e., tot lot, gazebo, barbeque, and clubhouse and pool
area on revised Lot 11, Block 7. Lots 28, 29, 30, and 31 of Block 10, and Lots
4, 5, 6, 7 of Block 4 will be placed in the amenities original locations. This
will consolidate all neighborhood amenities in one location to prevent
pedestrians crossing public streets as neighborhood residents use the facilities
and result in no loss of buildable lots."
it. Delete Condition 1.2.12
iii. ModifY Condition 1.2.13 to read: "The applicant will hold the property labeled
"School Site" on the Keego Springs preliminary plat dated January 24, 2006,
while Joint School District No.2 finalizes negotiations with the developers of
the Volterra Subdivision for the balance of the acreage needed for the school
site. If the school district has not finalized negotiations with Volterra by the
earlier of June 1, 2006, or when utilities are available, applicant will replat the
property identified as "School Site" in conformance with applicant's original
plan."
IV. Add a Condition which states: "ModifY the plat to add a pedestrian micropath
from Lago Drive to the school site at some point along the north boundary of
Lot 20, Block 10."
v. Add a Condition which states: "All perimeter fencing adjacent to the school
site shall be restricted to open vision fencing."
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i. Staff recommends that Condition 1.2.13 should amended to read: "The
applicant wi11 hold the property labeled "School Site" on the Keego Springs
preliminary plat dated January 24, 2006, while Joint School District No.2
finalizes negotiations with the developers of the Volterra Subdivision for the
balance of the acreage needed for the school site. If the school district has not
finalized negotiations with Volterra and the aDplicant for the "School Site" by
the earlier of June 1, 2006, or when utilities are available, applicant will replat
the property identified as "School Site" in conformance with applicant's
original plan."
ii. Variance to front setbacks: Staff is recommending denial of the subject
Variance application (V AR-05-024) for the reasons listed herein. We do not
find that the application meets all of the fmdings required in the UDC in order
for the City Council to grant a variance (see analysis below and Exhibit D).
Note: The application is unclear as to the specific front setbacks being
requested. The applicant should clarifY at the public hearing the specific front
setbacks being requested and the lots to which the variance would apply.
Findings:
Yes-for approval of annexation and zoning and preliminary plat
Yes-for denial of variance request
Notes: