HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/9 Memo from Planning
:-
Project: Spurwing
Location: north of Chin den Boulevard and northeast of the Ten Mile Road/Chinden Boulevard
intersection
Applications: annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, variance
Where we left off:
· Council approved the annexation request on 12/12/06. You have not yet adopted the findings for
the annexation approval.
· Council continued the public hearing on the preliminary plat and the variance application to allow
staff to review the revised plat presented by the applicant, update the Council staff report, prepare
draft conditions of approval, and prepare draft findings. You have those documents before you
tonight.
. The annexation request is not on the agenda.
Highlights of Proposed Development: 35 (46 previously) of the lots are proposed to be for attached patio
homes and 30 (27 previously) are proposed to be for detached homes. Access to this site is currently
provided by N. Spurwing Way via W. Balata Court, both local public streets within Spurwing
Subdivision. An emergency access is proposed from Chinden Boulevard at the southwest comer of the
site for emergency vehicles only. This is also the annexation path. Direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard
shall be prohibited except for the emergency access.
The Meridian City Council heard these items on December 12, 2006. At the public hearing they approved
the subject AZ application with a split zoning ofR-4 and R-8. Also during the December lih hearing, the
Council requested that the lots along the north boundary have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet,
and requested that Staff prepare Findings and Conditions of Approval for consideration ofthe subject PP
and V AR applications, to be considered on January 9th, 2007.
Summary of City Council Public Hearings:
1. In favor: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions (applicant/owner's representative), Jock
Hewitt (applicant/owner), Ed Davis, Larry Harpe, Tina Rice, Bailey Nicks, Debbie Kelly,
Monte McClure, Paul Sudmeier, Brent Kelly, Jo Olsen, Jim Johnson, Morton Hardwood,
and Charlene Hewitt
11. In opposition: Ron Ashley, Chuck Compton, Stephanie Stephenson, Andrea Nist, Amy
Jorgensen, Alexa Gillihan, Nate Jorgensen, Ed Duke, Gerald Bailey, Anna Mae Bailey,
Clare Trerise, Bob Trerise, and Rick Moritson
111. Neutral: Gary Eggery
IV. No Comment: Richard & Marie Crisp
v. Commenting: Byron Brown
Written testimony: Rick Mauritzson, Chuck & Joy Compton,Patrick House, Carol Scott, Nichol
Black, Ginna Engle, Donna Larson, Andrea Nist, Holly Kotoski, and Kathleen Rudeen
Written Testimony not included in Staff Report: Robert & Clare Trerise submitted an objection letter
dated December 15,2006. This item was forwarded to you by the Clerk's office.
Key Issues of Discussion by Council:
1. Annexation path
II. Split zoning for protection of density transition to existing residences
111. Remand back to Commission for review of revised plat and split zoning
Key Council Changes to Commission Recommendation: Annexation with split zoning ofR-4 and R-8
Variance Application.
1. There are no existing stub streets or pedestrian connections from the existing surrounding
Spurwing Subdivision for this development to connect to. Since the land to the west,
south, and east is part of the Spurwing Golf Course, no stub streets are proposed for future
connectivity although the Police Department is requesting a stub street be provided to the
property.
11. The irregular shape and size of the property also limits design alternatives that would allow
for shorter block lengths. Staff believes compliance with UDC 11-6C-3F is not feasible in
this case due to the site limitations stated above and that the required Findings for a
Variance can be met.
Elevations: Yes
Other: annexing the subject property will have the effect of having City parcels in the middle of
a County subdivision (a City enclave). Staff believes that it is in the City's best interest to have
additional properties included as part of annexing this property. It does not seem appropriate to
have a City-approved subdivision of this size that is surrounded by property still in the County,
which mayor may not annex into the City in the foreseeable future.
Notes: