Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Planning .~ .~ Requested Changes to the Agenda: Items 8 and 9 Cottswold: Applicant request to continue to November 8. Items 10 and II Whitebark: Staff request to continue to November 8 (annexation path dependent on Cottswold). Project: Shepherds Creek Location: west side of Meridian Road approx Y2 mile south of Overland RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 qty of Meridian. City Clerk Office Applications: DA Modification and Preliminary Plat Gross Residential Density: 4.58 units per acre (5.63 net density) Highlights of Proposed Development: DA Modification: DA with the Nazarene Church at the time of annexation allows for the construction and development of a church and a multi-purpose facility. The comprehensive plan designation of "Public/Quasi Public" reflects the past annexation of the property. You are now asked to modifY that agreement to allow for residential development as well. Similar to a request for annexation, it is at Council's discretion to approve or deny the request for the DA modification. Preliminary Plat approval of 55 single-family residential lots, 7 common lots, and 1 church lot on 32.45 acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision. 12 acres are proposed for residential development. 22 acres are to be retained and used by the Nazarene Church. 0.78 acres (6.5 % of the property) is set aside for open space, including micro-paths, tot lot, and a seating area with benches. Residential lots range in size from 5,092 square feet to 14,866 square feet. 58% ofthe lots are smaller than 6,600 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 6,694 square feet. Other: The approved church plans are for a 45,575 square foot facility-with room and plans for expansion. Currently as proposed by the applicant, there is no roadway connection from the church to the proposed residential development. All traffic from the church will head south through the Strada Bellisima development. Elevations: Yes-of tot lot Commission Recommendation: approval at their September 21,2006 hearing: i. In favor: Matt Schultz, Joel Hammer ii. In opposition: Kimberly Newell-LeMaster, Karen McGordon iii. Commenting: Leslie Madsen Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Need for a collector roadway out to Meridian Road; ii. Minimum house sizes; iii. Proposed lot sizes; iv. Transition in street sections and sidewalks between Bear Creek, Strada BeUissima and the subject development; and v. Traffic calming at some ofthe intersections. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Leave all lots as proposed, currently zoned R-8 - no R-4. ii. Require at least a 1,400 square foot minimum house size in this development. iii. Require the hlndscaping, street, and sidewalk to transition in to match the existing stub streets. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The collector roadway connection to Meridian Road. ii. Use (recorded DA prohibits residential uses) and density proposed. Written Testimony: i. Prior to P&Z hearing: Troy Johnson, Tracy Tatom, Carolyn Smith, Kimberly Newell-LeMaster (Bear Creek HOA petition with Approx. 234 signatures), Michael & Shannon Steege, Patrick Robinson. ii. Between P&Z and Council hearings: Tammy & Steven Carlton, Elizabeth Casey, Melisa & Chad Whipple, Lea Murgoitio, Kelly James, Angela Kynaston. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: collector road and density. i. The CU approval for the church required them to be part of this plat application. This was done for the sole purpose of having Council decide if it is appropriate to have a roadway connection to Meridian Road at the Yz mile point. ITD has stated that they support the collector road connection at the half mile location, and future signalization at the location, as warranted, and as funding allows. Staff is concerned that this is our opportunity to provide this connection to relieve traffic congestion on Overland and Victory. Because our code requires the Yz mile connection to be a collector road, we have called it such in our analysis. However, the collector road status would not continue past the church property. There is some misconception that we would now designate the entire roadway connection to Stoddard Road as a collector. This is not true. The roadways within Bear Creek would remain as local streets. ii. The surrounding property owners are opposed to the Meridian Road connection. We anticipate that you will hear a lot of testimony tonight about how the proposed residential lots need to have access to roadways that are not part of the Bear Creek Subdivision. Staff agrees that it is important for all the properties in this Y2 section (including the Bear Creek residents, the Shepherd Creek residents, and the Nazaren Church members) to have safe travel routes. The primary direction of travel is to Meridian Road. A signalized approach to Meridian Road would provide a safe connection. Council may recall that this area was previously approved for a local roadway connection as part of the Kodiak subdivision. The subdivision was later replatted as part of Bear Creek. Although a local street connection would have been inappropriate, we feel that a collector street on the Church property is appropriate. iii. The applicant is opposed to the connection. Their concerns include the opposition by the neighbors and the cost associated with construction of the facility. iv. ACHD has specifically prohibited the connection to Meridian Road. We asked the ACHD to leave this decision to Council, but they felt they could not support the roadway connection. v. The applicant has proposed lot sizes consistent with the R-8 zoning on the property. However, the Comprehensive Plan specifically directs the Council to consider the surrounding properties in establishing the appropriate type and density of development for areas designated as Public/Quasi Public. Staff originally proposed that the applicant meet the R-4 zoning requirements. The Planning Commission did not support this condition of approval. vi. In summary, staff would like to point out that there are several unresolved issues with regard to the development ofthis ,property including: the proposed density and the Highway 69 connection and future signalization (and all the complexities of that decision). This development hinges on the approval ofthe DA amendment. If the Council feels these issues could be better addressed at a later date, they can deny the request on the basis that it is not in the best interest of the City to amend the DA at this time. Notes: