PZ - Staff Concerns pre Staff Report
Charlene Way
From:Alan Tiefenbach
Sent:Friday, March 05, 2021 10:41 AM
To:Adrienne Weatherly; Charlene Way; Chris Johnson
Subject:Staff concerns ahead of staff report being completed for Skybreak Neighborhood
(H-2020-0127)
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
From: Alan Tiefenbach
Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 10:39 AM
To: 'Laren Bailey' <laren@congergroup.com>
Cc: Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; 'Caleb Hood' <chood@meridiancity.org>; Cameron Arial
<carial@meridiancity.org>
Subject: FW: Skybreak
Laren,
I’ve been reviewing your Skybreak proposal and am currently writing the staff report. The staff report is due to go out
NEXT weekend, but I’d like to give you a heads up.
There have been some changes from what you submitted previously, such as 24 less lots, a single family attached
product at the NW corner, and some additional open space – that’s good.
However, it is looking like we’re still in the same position as we were before. I described our issues in my February 5,
2021 email to you, but I’ll summarize again. As the staff report is not completed, there could be more or less.
1. We don’t support rezoning to R-15 merely to allow private streets. This zone district density exceeds what is
designated by the FLUM and what you propose would easily fit into R-8. Also, it seems non-sensical to zone the
eastern portion of the site, with the larger lot sizes, at a higher density zone district than the western portion, which
includes smaller lots and single family attached. R-15 is intended for higher density developments, attached SFR and
/ or clustered development along mews, not as a reason to be eligible for private streets.
2. We do not support private streets that do not meet minimum ACHD templates. The idea of “private streets” and the
gates for the selling point is not such a big issue to ME, but 27’ wide streets with no sidewalks and landscaping is an
issue. As I mentioned in my previous email, this would result in streets that pass the maintenance costs on to the
homeowners through the HOA, and ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were financial
constraints. The only rationale you have given for this is that it is a more intimate setting that is desired by a
particularly demographic, but we are unconvinced this same demographic would not prefer sidewalks and
landscaping if given the option. We do not understand why what you propose is a BETTER option than what is
1
required. If there were connected pathways that were accessible to everyone throughout the development that did
not require walking in the streets, we might be more amenable to this request, but we do still have issues with
passing all the costs on to homeowners.
a. We have concerns with the precedent this would set by supporting private roads that do not meet minimum
templates without a more compelling reason than you can sell the lots.
b. Land development has also expressed concerns with how the minimum 30’ utility easements will be
accommodated in the narrow streets as easements may end up overlapping on to private lots and would
prevent improvements such as landscaping, fences, trees, etc.
c. Water and sewer mains should not be in common driveways, at the least the utilities in these area will need
to be redesigned.
i. We may be okay with private streets and gates if the private streets met minimum ACHD templates.
3. We appreciate the road and the open space toward the southern portion of the property as well as the height
restriction, but the majority of the lots at the south are far smaller than the adjacent properties in the Vantage Point
Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan density recommendation in Phase 9 is lot sizes of at least 14,520 sq. ft. (< 3 du
/ acre) whereas you are showing lots as small as 4,300 sq. ft. That’s more than three times smaller than what is
recommended and six times smaller than the adjacent lots in Vantage Point.
4. Fire has expressed concerns with this development – most of the property is not within the 5 minute response time,
has a low reliability rating, and most of the subdivision except Phase 8 is only accessible from Eagle Rd which will be
an issue if it is ever blocked. Although a southern fire station is budgeted in 2023, we are uncomfortable supporting
this until that fire station is building out and staffing is established. Fire has mentioned they would prefer a northern
access. You’ve mentioned that is not feasible, but we are not convinced. Perhaps you could provide something from
an Engineer saying why the cost / benefits is not feasible for a secondary emergency access to the north. Can you
obtain access from the northern properties to run a second emergency access out to E. Lake Hazel in the areas of
less topography?
5. You do not have legal access for 23 lots in Phase 9. You only have emergency access. I am not comfortable
supporting an annexation and plat on the possibility that you may get access in the future. I do understand Pura Vida
might have been approved with a similar arrangement. I cannot speak to other projects and what may or may not
happened. However, it is important to note than in the case of Pura Vida, you control that access to that
development because you own the land adjacent to it, and we would not let anyone developer your subject lot
unless you give access. That is not the same situation with Parkland Development who owns the property to the
south and may or may not give you full access.
6. There are also smaller issues that would not be deal killers for us, and we could be okay with conditioning, such as
some of the open space is fragmented and or not useable and could be better consolidated, you are crediting areas
such as the Farr Lateral and all the eastern slope as qualified open space, but the landscape plan does not show it is
landscaped with one tree per 8,000 sq. ft. as required, etc.
WE DO like the trail connection along the Farr Lateral, the large community playground, the trail running along the
eastern slope, the golf cart path and the 1 acre sports park. These are great amenities, although we do think the parks
should be oriented more toward the center of the establishment with better pathway access leading to them.
Given the significance of the issues, and that we believe a complete redesign could be required, we do not see how we
can recommend approval with conditions. It will be likely staff will not support this project as proposed. Also, as
expressed in my previous email, you have not satisfied any of the criteria required for alternative design regarding 112
lots being served by gates and common driveways off of private streets other than it would provide an intimate setting
and there is a demographic that would purchase the homes.
We’d be happy to discuss all of this with you at your convenience,
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
2
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
3