Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to Staff ReportPage 1 of 3 Machelle Hill ~~~~v~~ DEC 1 8 2007 V From: Lenny Riccio [lennyr@landmark-ep.comj c,-t-Y ~'_ ~ ~ ~ C,c~ ~ ~ F Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:11 PM To: Bill Parsons Cc: ,Machelle Hill; Tara Green; Chris Todd; Clinton Boyle; pwihouse@aol.com; John G. Carpenter; Joe Roseberry Subject: Blackstone Subdivision No. II Bill, Thank you for the City's staff report. I enjoyed working with you as well as the rest of the City staff and I look forward to the future when I have the opportunity to interact with City staff again. Per your request, I have included below my concerns with the staff's interpretation of the purpose statement regarding zoning districts in the UDC. Please call or email me if you have any questions. Thank you, Lot History The subject lot was originally intended to be a future developable area of Blackstone Subdivision. The reasoning for this was so the developer can negotiate with the neighboring parcel (which is still not annexed into the City) for his land in order to build a commercial site. Though at the time the City did not envision a commercial node at this intersection the developer was of the opinion that the best use of the corner was commercial. He held off any development believing the City would change the designation to commercial in the Future Land Use Map. With the updated Future Land Use Map of 2006 the City still designated this corner as Medium Density. A number of years have passed since the original Blackstone Plat was recorded but with two Future Land Use Map Changes the site was still designated as medium density. Therefore, the developer is conceding to the City designation and moving forward with a residential use. A residential use for this lot will have less of an impact than a commercial use would create. Arguments for the Density Deviation • As a result of roads being dedicated and landscape buffers being emplaced as this lot is apart of the original Blackstone Subdivision, the results of the dedications has limited our gross acreage for the site. With the addition of the roads and landscape buffers being dedicated and designed, the gross acreage of the site if platted with the original Blackstone Subdivision would have been well below the 4 D.U./acre cap. • In the pre application meeting, the open space requirement was waived. The City indicated that the site can utilize the existing open space that is within the original Blackstone Subdivision. However, this same reasoning has been overlooked for the density requirement. • If the original Blackstone Subdivision had been platted with the 3 lots of Blackstone Number 2 there would be no question that the project met the density requirement as this request would have encompassed the entire Blackstone Subdivision. Therefore, if the original Blackstone Subdivision was platted with the 2 additional lots, the gross density for Blackstone would have been 3.2 D.U./acre overall. This is well below the 4 D.U./acre cap. • All requirements of the zoning ordinance (including lot sizes) have been met excluding the staffs interpretation of density. However, according to the purpose statement of zoning districts this site meets and exceeds all the requirements. o The density is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of 3-8 dwelling units to the acre o The proposal will be connected to City water and sewer o The proposal is in compliance with all zoning and density requirements of the district, and the intent/purpose of the zoning district. • This lot is owned by the original developer of Blackstone Subdivision and Blackstone Number 2 is a replat 12/18/2007 Page 2 of 3 of the original Blackstone Subdivision. • The staffs interpretation of the density was brought to our attention 6 days before the hearing. The request is for final plat, construction drawings, and preliminary plat and there is a significant amount of work that has to occur in order to revise the plans. • If the density interpretation was brought to our attention in our pre-application meeting in July, then staffs comment could have been addressed. This could have been addressed by simply working with the homeowners association and extending the property lines to capture the landscape buffer and simply design a proposal that includes the landscape buffers and dedicating the buffers back to the Blackstone HOA. With this simple solution the density maximum. could have been met. However with the time and money invested by the developer in this project, to make a simple revision to the proposal will be costly to the developer as there are construction drawings, final plat, and preliminary plat that are proposed. In addition, with the simple change it will be the same project except with landscape buffers that will be re- dedicated to the Blackstone HOA. We believe through viewing Blackstone Subdivision in its entirety the density requirement is clearly met as this was the same reasoning used for the open space requirement. In addition, if the lot was designed with three lots at the time of the original Blackstone Plat there clearly would not have be a staff comment in regard to density. I would also like to indicate that this is a unique situation. This situation is unique because the lot is owned by the original developer of the Blackstone Subdivision. The proposal is for a replat request. Last, the overall density along with other zoning .requirements is met. If you have any questions please call or email me. Thank you, Lenny Riccio Lenny Riccio Land Use Planner lennyr(a),1 andm ark-ep. com Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. ph:208-442-6300 fax:208-466-0944 ~~ a:.b r.~.~ G~'Ck 71.li~i415YG dA'~ ~ f J1~ NOTICE: All information in and attached to the e-mail(s) below may be proprietary, confidential, privileged and otherwise protected from improper or erroneous disclosure. If you are not the sender's intended recipient, you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate this message. If you have erroneously received this communication, please notify the sender immediately by phone (208-442-6300) or by a-mail and destroy all copies of this message (electronic, paper, or otherwise). Thank you. From: Bill Parsons [mailto:parsonsb@meridiancity.org] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:34 AM To: Bill Nary; Ted Baird; Machelle Hill; Tara Green; Will Berg; Lenny Riccio Cc: C. Caleb Hood Subject: Blackstone No. 2 PFP-07-004 for the P/Z 12/20 MTG Good Day All, Attached is the Staff Report for Blackstone No. 2 (PFP-07-004). This item is scheduled to be on the Commission agenda for December 20, 2007. Please call or a-mail with any questions. Lenny -Please submit any written comments you may have regarding recommendations in the staff 12/18/2007 Page 3 of 3 report to the City Clerks Office greent(a~meridiancty.org, hllm~a~,meridiancity.org and myself as soon as possible. Thanks, Bill Parsons Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 660 East Watertower Lane Suite 202 Meridian, Idaho 83642 PRONE: (208) 884-5533 FAX: (208) 888-6854 parsonsb(u~meridiancity.org 12/18/2007