PZ - Staff's Response to Applicant's Comments on Staff Report 11-19 Mayor Robert E. SIrmson
EIDIAN city COUntll Mere
�--�� 1`r+zg Bernt Brad
+ioaglun
Joe @anon Jessica perreault
1D
AHOLuke Cavener LcZ$trader
November 4,2020
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deb Nelson
CC: City Clerk
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner
RE: Skybreak Subdivision—Response to Applicant's Comments on Staff Report
Staff has reviewed and discussed your comments and offers the following responses:
Water& sewer service:
• Staff agrees services are available in Eagle Rd. immediately adjacent to the site and will be extended to
and through the site with development.
• Staff maintains the site is on the fringe as only the properties shown in color on the map below have been
annexed into the City.
Note:Staffs analysis relates only to consistency with the goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan
pertaining to prioritizing infill development over parcels on the fringe (Goal 2.02.02), not whether or not
services can be provided—they can be.
I
4
.1
ILI
Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org
Fire service:
• Staff agrees that Fire service can and would be provided to the proposed development if approved. Staff s
analysis as to the adequacy of service relates to Goal 3.03.03F in the Comprehensive Plan which states,
"Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban
services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities
and services."Based on Fire Department comments pertaining to the project's consistency with adopted
levels of service,there are deficiencies in regard to response times,resource reliability&risk factors.
These deficiencies are magnified by the number of units(353)proposed,many(121) of which are behind
gated entrances,which further hinders response times—timeliness in a life/safety situation is the issue and
is the basis for Staffs determination. The Fire Marshall reviewed and agreed with Staffs comments in
the report.
• While Station#8 is planned to open in late 2023,there are no guarantees it will as it hasn't been approved
or funded at this time. The timing for annexation&development will be better when Station#8 opens or
is at least funded and in the development process.
• Staffs support of the Pinnacle project was based on many other factors as is denial of this project.
Note:Staff's analysis as to the "adequacy"office service is not a basis in itselffor denial but a contributing
factor in determining overall consistency with the goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the
UDC Findings necessary for approval of an annexation &preliminary plat.
Schools:
• Staffs analysis relates to consistency with the goals &objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically
the proposed development's impact on school enrollment(Goal 3.01.01A),which is or will be over
capacity with the proposed development based on WASD comments.
• The development is not proposed to be restricted to residents 55 and older;therefore, enrollment numbers
are calculated on typical single-family homes.
• Owyhee HS at 8+miles away from the site may be an option in providing additional capacity for students
in this area if this development is approved(TBD by WASD).
Note:School enrollment/capacity is not a basis in itself for denial but a contributing factor in determining
overall consistency with the goals &objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC Findings necessary
for approval of annexation.
Housing Type/Lot Size Mix:
• The provision of an additional housing type(i.e. 30 attached homes in the northwest portion of the
development)would contribute to the variety in housing types desired and would provide an appropriate
transition to the north where MHDR uses are planned—even more could be provided along north
boundary for a greater variety in housing types for the development. One concept elevation is shown, is
more variety proposed?
• The mix of housing proposed is different styles,not types except for the proposed addition of SFR
attached. There is very little variety in lot sizes proposed at 92%being 40'-50' x 105'+1-which Staff is of
the opinion is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Also,the Applicant failed to accurately
represent the style(s)of homes that would be constructed on the smaller lots—none of the elevations
submitted actually fit on the lots. Viable elevations were submitted in your response.
Transition to 1-acre County lots&LDR designated property in SW:
• Per the Comprehensive Plan, LDR designated areas are for the development of single-family homes on
large and estate lots and should provide a transition between existing rural residential&urban properties.
The proposed lots in this area at 40' x 105'-120'+/-are not large/estate lots and although open space is
provided they don't provide a transition as desired even if the density were within the desired range
(calculations are based on 24 units/6.6 acres=3.6 units/acre).
2
• While 1/2 acre lots may typically be considered an acceptable transition to 1-acre lots,there are(3)lots
proposed next to one County lot(3766)and small lots(i.e. 45' x 110') separated by common area and/or
a road along the southeast boundary which won't provide a good transition in housing/lot sizes.
Testimony has been submitted from the adjacent neighbors stating they don't feel there's enough
transition. The Applicant's proposal to increase setbacks could be presented at the hearing for the
neighbors' and Commission/Council's weigh-in on whether or not this is acceptable. Staff feels a more
appropriate transition would be 2:1 lots abutting the County lot(3766).
Open Space/Amenities:
• As stated in the staff report,the project meets qualified open space& site amenity standards. Although
provision of usable common areas is not a requirement of the UDC, it is a goal/objective of the
Comprehensive Plan along with the provision of quality amenities(2.02.01A,2.02.1B). Because 92%of
the lot sizes proposed are very small, Staff is of the opinion more usable common areas are needed
dispersed throughout the development for convenient access. Additionally,with a development of this
size, Staff recommends a clubhouse and swimming pool or similar quality amenity is provided.
Private Streets—R-8 Code Determination/Gates:
• Per UDC 11-317-2,the applicability of the private street requirements pertain to any properties that do not
have frontage on a public street or where frontage is not required. UDC 11-1A-1 defines a property as a
"lot"or"parcel". In the R-8 district, a minimum frontage of 40' is required. Therefore,private streets
aren't allowed in the R-8 district because public street frontage is required. Note:If the Planning
Manager deems private streets appropriate in the R-8 district, this may supersede Staffs determination.
• Per UDC 11-317-1, it's not the intent to approve private streets for single-family developments other than
those that create a common mew through the site design or that proposed a limited gated residential
development."No mews are proposed in the single-family development and the gated area contains 121
lots,which isn't a"limited"gated development in Staff s interpretation and exceeds the maximum of 50
units.
• UDC 11-3F-4A.4b states, "The proposed development shall have no more than 50 dwelling units."
Alternative Compliance may be requested to this standard.
Transportation:
• The staff report notes existing conditions&future improvements planned in the area—the ACHD report
notes that Eagle Rd. as it exists can provide an acceptable level of service. Staff has no issue with this.
As mentioned above,while factors such as extension of services, school capacity and adequacy of fire service are
considered when determining overall consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the required Findings for
annexation and preliminary plat applications,they are not the primary reasons for Staffs recommendation of
denial. The lack of significant variety in lot sizes,housing types,private streets in the R-8 district,number of
homes accessed off private streets behind gates, inadequate usable open space&quality amenities for the size of
the development proposed are the primary reasons for denial per the Findings in Section X of the staff report.
Because the changes that would be needed in order for Staff to support this project are significant and would
require a total re-design(and likely a re-notice), and because Staff previously discussed these items with the
Applicant at the pre-application meeting and they chose to move forward with the proposed application, Staff
recommended denial. If the Commission votes to support the application,it will need to be continued to a
subsequent hearing in order for Staff to draft DA provisions and conditions of approval.
Please let me know how you'd like to proceed and if you intend to make revisions to your plans. Any revised
plans should be submitted at least 10 days prior to the scheduled Planning&Zoning Commission hearing.
3