The URL can be used to link to this page

PZ - Staff Report 3-18STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 3/18/2021 DATE: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Tiefenbach, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0127 Skybreak Subdivision LOCATION: 7020 S. Eagle Rd. & 3487 E. Adler Hof Ln., in the south '/2 of the NW '/4 of Section 4, T.2N., R.IE. (Parcels # S1404244250 & S1404233650) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION E IDIANn-=- �AHO The Applicant has submitted the following applications: • Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning district; • Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot for the existing home). • Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two (2) gates; and, • Alternative Compliance to UDC 11 -3F -4A.6, which prohibits common driveways off private streets, to allow such in three (3) locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 11-3F-4A.b which limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units. The applicant submitted a previous proposal in June of 2020 (H-2020-0079). This proposal consisted of 353 building lots, all of it single family detached. This proposal was scheduled for the October 15, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Following staffs report to the Commission recommending denial, the applicant withdrew the application, and resubmitted the present one in January of 2021. This proposal is virtually the same except for 24 less lots, slightly enlarged open space in several areas, and 30 single family attached units in the northwest corner of the project. Page 1 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Acreage Existing/Proposed Zoning Future Land Use Designation Existing Land Use(s) Proposed Land Use(s) Lots (# and type; bldg./common) Phasing Plan (# of phases) Number of Residential Units (type of units) Density Open Space (acres, total [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: History (previous approvals) Details 80.46 RUT in Ada County (existing), R-8 and R-15 proposed Low Density Residential (LDR) & Medium Density Residential (MDR) Single-family residential/agricultural Single-family residential (SFR) 328 SFR buildable lots/40 common lots/14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot & 1 lot for the existing home) 9 phases 30 attached SFR homes 298 detached SFR homes (one is existing) 4.1 units/acre (gross) 14.99 acres (or 18.8%) qualified open space (2) dog parks; 3/a acre park with play structure, climbing rocks, a shade structure and benches; entry park, 1 -acre sports park, passive open spaces and pathways The Farr Lateral crosses the southwest corner of this site; hillside/topography within southern rim area. 5/27/20; 14 attendees, December 16, 2020; 9 attendees Property boundary adjustment (Record of Survey #12358, Eisenman 2020), previous proposal similar to this one was withdrawn just prior to Planning Commission due to staff recommendation of denial. (H-2020-0079) Page B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report (yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Traffic Impact Study (yes/no) Yes Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access One (1) public street access (Street A) is proposed via S. Eagle Rd., an arterial street. Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Eagle Rd. — Better than "E" (acceptable level of service) Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and interconnectivity as depicted on the plat. Southern stub streets only have emergency access. The area in the NEC of the proposed development (Phase 8) Page 2 Description I Details I Page a Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks / Buffers Proposed Road Improvements cannot develop until Pura Vida extends a public street; Phase 9 of the development currently does not have the right to access the private lane and cannot develop until a public street is extended to the proposed development There is an existing private street (E. Adler Hof Ln.) that provides access from S. Eagle Rd. to the existing homes on this site. This roadway should terminate with development of the site as proposed. None Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)l Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP): • Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5 -lanes from Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road in 2024. • Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5 -lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road in 2023. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 6 -lanes on the north leg, 5 -lanes on the south, 7 -lanes east, and 6 -lanes on the west leg, and reconstructed/signalized in 2023. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the 2016 C I P to be widened to 5 -lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the 2016 CIP to be widened to 3 -lanes on the north leg, 2 -lanes on the south, 2 -lanes east, and 3 -lanes on the west leg, and signalized between 2026 and 2030. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.9 miles (Fire Station #4) Fire has expressed concerns with only one point of access from S. Eagle Rd. Fire would prefer a second access to the north to E. Lake Hazel Rd. Fire has also expressed concerns with the private gates causing additional delays. • Fire Response Time Most (3/4+l-) of this development falls outside of the 5 minute response time goal from Fire Station #4. • Resource Reliability Current reliability is 77% from Station #4 does not meet targeted goal of 80% or greater • Risk Identification 2 — current resources would not be adequate to supply service. A wildfire safety plan is required. • Accessibility Project meets all required access, road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device; can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required (fire station is 5.9 miles away). • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour, may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other In the event of a hazmat event, there will need to be mutual aid required for the development. In the event of a structure fire, an additional truck company will be required — this will require additional time delays as a second truck company is not available in the City. Police Service • Distance to Police Station • Police Response Time • Calls for Service • % of calls for service split by priority • Accessibility 5.5 miles There is no call data in this area because the proposed development is at the edge of City limits. 7 (within a mile of site — between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) See Section IX.D No concerns Page 3 Description Details Page • Specialty/resource needs None at this time • Crimes 1 (within a mile of site — between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • Crashes 9 (within a mile of site —between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits, service can be provided if this development is approved. West Ada School District • Distance (elem, ms, hs) Enrollment Capar Miles Dew. m school • Capacity of Schools **Silver Sage Elementary" 230 425 5.1 miles Lake Hazel Middle School 928 1000 2.4 miles • # of Students Enrolled Mountain View High School 2302 2175 4.8 miles **Enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped. Students in this development will be attending Silver Sag mmill Elementary until a new school is built to eliminate overcrowding at Hillsdale Elementary. • Predicted # of students 247 +/- generated from proposed development Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Sewer will be available with the development of Keep Subdivision on the West side of Services Eagle Road. • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.08 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns Water and sewer mains should not be in common driveways. Concerns have been expressed regarding the width of the private streets and that the required 30' easements may overlap onto private properties, rendering these areas unbuildable. The City is applying the following requirements for Common Driveways. • Three or less lots — services from main in adjacent road • Four or more lots — Sewer in common drive. Sewer will be private and will be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain. Manhole needed in the common drive at the property boundary with "Private" on the lid. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's Page 4 • Water Quality I No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Common drives that have both water and sewer mains will require a 30' easement • As currently designed, most phases do not meet minimum fire flow pressure. There are multiple options to meet fire flow including upsizing some water mains to 12" and a secondary connections. • Coordinate with PW Engineering on main sizes, connection at the SW corner and connection at the NE corner. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Legend ��Project Lflcfliior ® � Ic sidenfial .in--Ww D Aerial Map Page 5 Zoning Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION Planned Development Map let IetPrnjeci Lacaiion '-11 City Limitr — Planned Parcels A. Applicant: Conger Group — 4824 W. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: Peter and Dana Eisenman — 3487 E. Adler Hof Ln., Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, Conger Group — 4824 W. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Notification published in newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet Applicant posted public hearing notice on site Planning & Zoning Posting Date 2/26/2021 2/23/2021 3/5/2021 Nextdoor posting 2/25/2021 Page 6 City Council Posting Date 0 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates the 6 +/- acres at the southwest corner of the site, south of the Farr Lateral, as Low Density Residential (LDR) and the remaining 74+/- acres as Medium Density Residential (MDR). A City Park is designated in the general area at the southwest corner of the site. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources, recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces, parks, trails and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The Applicant proposes to develop this site with 328 single-family residential homes at an overall gross density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre (An additional lot will contain the existing house). A total of 23 units are proposed within the 6+/- acre LDR designated area for a gross density of 3.8 units per acre in that area, which exceeds the density desired of 3 or fewer units per acre. Smaller lots, instead of the large or estate lots as desired in LDR designated areas, are proposed along with open space areas along the southern boundary and along the northern boundary adjacent to the Farr Lateral. There are several larger one-half acre lots proposed at the southeast directly abutting the adjacent residences in Vantage Point Subdivision. However, the rectangular lots are oriented as such that the abutting lot lines are half or less than the width of the neighboring residential lots, so there are several lots abutting one neighboring lot. The applicant proposes to limit the height of the houses in this area to one story to help protect view sheds. The units proposed in the MDR designated area meet a gross density of 4.1 units per acre in that area, which is consistent with that desired in MDR designated areas of 3 to 8 units per acre. A City park is not proposed, but the Park's Department has determined a City park is not needed in this area. B. Comprehensive Plan Analysis (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents." (2.01.02D) The applicant isproposing 328 lots, with 30 of the lots containing single family attached at the northwest portion of the site. The remainder of the 299 lots are intended for single family detached units. The applicant's narrative references housing types such as large rim lot houses, two story golf course houses, large lot homes, 255 single story homes and the attached single-family product. The single family attached product does contribute to the variety of housing types in the overall area. However, the remaining single family detached houses contribute to a diversity of housings les but notparticularly the variety of housing Upes intended by the Comprehensive Plan for all needs, preferences and financial capabilities. Page 7 • "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." (3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Currently, this development can be served by the Fire Department. However, most of the development is outside of response time goals, does not meet resource reliability goals, and has risk factors including a steep hill with a potential for wildfire if the hillside isn't maintained (see the Fire Department's comment in Section VII below). Additionally, with the main access and secondary access both from Eagle Rd., if access is blocked from the north via Eagle Rd. it may delay emergency services by having to travel 3.5+/- miles around the square mile to access the site, potentially creating a life safety issue. If the applicant is able to secure legal secondary access to the north this would alleviate concerns but this would be contingent upon whether those properties develop, and staff might recommend only some number of lots being developed until that occurs. The Southern Meridian Fire Station adjacent to Discovery Park is anticipated for construction in 2023; if this occurs, there will be significantly improved fire service to the subject property. The annexation is currently in process and scheduled for a public hearing. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices." (3.07.01A) The subject property abuts Pura Vida Ridge Ranch to the northeast, the Boise Ranch Golf Course to the east, and Vantage Pointe Subdivision to the south. This development proposes R-8 zoning and lot sizes of approximately 5, 000 sq. ft. to 6, 000 sq. ft. adjacent to Pura Vida Ridge Ranch, whereas Pura Vida Ranch includes lot sizes of comparable sizes and the same R-8 zoning. To the southwest (Phase 9), the development proposes lot sizes of approximately 6,000 — 6,500 sq. ft. whereas the adjacent Vantage Pointe Subdivision is comprised of lots one -acre in size and greater (although there are four lots proposed with this development directly abutting the south area and are % acre to 3/ acre in size). The development does include private roads and common open space as a buffer of between 80 feet and 120 feet between the smaller lots of the subject property and the one acre lots to the south in Vantage Point. The development also proposes one story homes in this area. An abutting neighbor has submitted written testimony stating the buffer as proposed and the lot sizes are not appropriate transitions in this area. It is staff's opinion the lots should be at least one -acre in this area and have property line lengths that better orient to adjacent off-site properties. The Planning Commission and City Council should assess whether there is an appropriate transition in this area. "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed single-family attached homes at the northwest are generally compatible as they directly abut S. Eagle Road and there are no adjacent homes directly to the north. The single family detached homes are generally compatible with existing rural residential homes as they are all residential in nature. However, with the exception of the larger lots and open space on the south boundary, the proposed plat depicts smaller lots (i.e. 4,448-4,950 sf.) than those of the lots in the abutting Vantage Pointe Subdivision. The Commission and Council should determine if the applicant has provided an adequate transition. Page 8 • "With new subdivision plats, require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities." (2.02.01A) The Pathways Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi -use pathway system along the eastern boundary of the site; a 10 foot wide multi -use pathway is proposed in accord with the Plan on the northern portion of the development but transitions to a 5 -foot wide pathway to the south and does not stub to the south for future extension as shown on the Plan. However, the Park's Dept. has indicated they are supportive of the proposed design. This pathway will eventually provide a connection to Discovery Park to the west and Hillside Elementary and the YMCA to the north. There is also a 10' multi -use pathway proposed adjacent to the Farr Lateral, as is shown on the pathways plan. These pathways will be valuable amenities to the project. A golf cart pathway is shown as Lot 41 on Block 5, which terminates at the Boise Ranch Golf Course. Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter, pathways, two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20, 000 square feet above the minimum UDC requirements, which are located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site and are not centrally located. Although much of the open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements of the UDC (i.e. at least 20' in width and 50' in length with an access on each end) a significant portion of what is proposed as qualified open space consists of street buffers and end caps with parkways. Also, it is important to note that the applicant's narrative contains a pedestrian connectivity exhibit which shows narrow private roads with no sidewalks and common drives as `pedestrian connections " which staff believes is somewhat misleading. However, the private street standards do not require them. Additionally, staff believes the entire development should contain public streets which would require the 5 -foot sidewalks per City code. The Commission and Council should determine if the pedestrian circulation plan is adequate for the proposed development with the inclusion of the private system. • "Evaluate open space and amenity requirement and criteria for consistency with community needs and values." (2.02.01B) Because the average lot size proposed in the development is only 6,280 square feet, Staff is of the opinion the end caps could be re-oriented/consolidated with other larger common lots to increase the usable open space within the development. This was discussed during the pre -application meetings with the applicant and they are of the opinion the open space as proposed exceeds UDC standards and is designed to meet the needs of the development. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems; services are required to be provided to and through with this development. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe." (2.02.02) The subject property abuts portions of the city limits at the northwest and northeast corner, but the majority of the property perimeter is surrounded by unincorporated Ada County. The proposed project is located near the fringe of the City and does not meet the definition of an infill development. • "Encourage the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design." (4.05.02C) The Ten Mile Creek crosses the northeast corner of the site; a common area is proposed for the creek area and a multi -use pathway is proposed along the creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Page 9 • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks, water and sewer utilities." (3.03.03G) City sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided with the public road portion of this development. The cross sections provided for the private road portion do not depict sidewalks. The applicant contends that the private streets provide an intimate setting for the residents and narrower streets decrease traffic speeds which do not warrant the additional improvements. It is important to note that the director has not approved the private street application, thus the plat should be redesigned to incorporate public streets for the entire development. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits." (4.05.03B) The proposed project is in the City's `fringe" area; therefore, development in this area is not encouraged as are vacant/underutilized parcels currently within City limits. However, the City has recently approved several developments (Pura Vida and Poiema) north of the proposed development making this property more desirable to develop. • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions (e.g., traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)." (3.01.01A) Eagle Rd. is currently a 2 -lane roadway with no curb, gutter or sidewalks; no improvements are planned in the CIP/IFYWP to the segment of Eagle Rd. abutting this site. The Lake Hazel/Eagle Road intersection north of the site is planned to be reconstructed and signalized in 2023. The ACHD report states that the TIS estimates this development to generate an additional 3,343 trips per day resulting in an acceptable level ofservice (i.e. better than "E'). WASD estimates this development will house approximately 247 school aged children — enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped so students in this development would attend Silver Sage, which is currently under capacity; enrollment at Lake Hazel Middle School and Mountain View High School would be over capacity at build -out of this development according to the Community Development's school impact review included in Section VII. Water and sewer are being extended consistent with the City's master plan as noted above. Discovery Park, a 77+/- acre City Park, is located approximately a mile away from this site to the west on Lake Hazel Rd., which should be adequate to serve this development. • "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided." (3.03.03) Two types of housing are proposed — single family detached and 30 single family attached units - which willprovide diversity in housing, and the density in the MDR designated area falls within the desired range. The density proposed in the LDR designated area at the southwest corner of the site is above the 3 units or fewer per acre desired in that area. However, the Comprehensive Plan states future land use designations are not parcel specific. An adjacent, abutting designation, when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application, may be used. A designation may not must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation, and may not apply to more than 50% of the land being developed. The predominate land use designation is MDR and the applicant has the ability to design the project to meet density perimeters of the MDR designations provided other goals of the Comprehensive Plan are being met. Page 10 As discussed below, R-15 zoning is proposed at the less dense eastern portion of the site to allow the option ofprivate streets without sidewalks., Staff has concerns with the private streets, specifically the long-term maintenance and interconnectivity with surrounding developments. If these roadways are not constructed to ACHD standards, the likelihood ofACHD accepting these streets in the future is slim. Also, stafffinds that although most of the open space meets the minimum dimensions, not all of it is quality open space (please see the qualified open space section below). The Fire Department has noted concerns with the access and serviceability of this project ahead of the fire station being constructed next to Discovery Park. Finally, public services are proposed to be extended near the fringe of the City rather than to vacant/underdeveloped infill parcels as desired. For these reasons, Staff is of the opinion the proposed annexation may not be the best interest of the City at this time. C. Annexation & Zoning: Portions of the annexation area are contiguous to a portion of the current City limits boundary and within the City's Area of City Impact at the east boundary. Most of the surrounding properties are still within unincorporated Ada County. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VI.A. The proposed annexation area consists of two (2) tax parcels containing a total of 80.46 acres of land designated as LDR and MDR on the FLUM and contains land to the section line of S. Eagle Rd. The Applicant proposes to annex the two (2) parcels, zone the western 43.85 acres with an R-8 zoning district, and the eastern 36.60 -acre portion with a R-15 zoning district. The R-8 zoning district allows lots as small as 4,000 sq. ft. with a minimum street frontage of 40'. The western 43.85 acres of the plat proposed for R-8 zoning reflects lots that meet this minimum lot and frontages requirements. The R-15 zoning district allows lots as small as 2,000 sq. ft. and has no requirement for a minimum street frontage. This zoning is typically reserved for higher densities, including single family attached, townhomes and multifamily. It is important to note that with the previous application, staff informed the applicant that the private streets that are proposed with a significant portion of this development were not allowed under the R-8 zoning that was originally proposed for the entire development. The provisions for private streets apply only to properties that do not have frontage on a public street or where frontage is not required per UDC 11-3F-2. The applicant has subsequently revised their application to propose R-15 zoning merely for the purpose of being eligible for private streets whereas all other dimensional standards would comply with the requirements of the R-8 zone. Staff believes the development should incorporate public streets within the entire development and zone the property in accord with the more appropriate R-8 zone (Please see the access section below for more discussion regarding the private streets). In previous discussions with the applicant, staff has suggested the applicant either rezone to PUD, or initiate a code change in regard to requirements for private streets. The applicant has chosen to move forward with a request to rezone to R-15. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are two (2) existing homes and outbuildings on this site — the 5,892 square foot home constructed in 2002 at the east end of the site is planned to remain on a lot (Lot 64, Block 5) in the proposed subdivision; the home and accessory structures on the west end of the site are planned to be removed with development. These homes are accessed via a private lane (E. Adler Hof Ln.) from S. Eagle Rd. If annexed, the home proposed to remain is required to hook-up to City water and sewer service and change their address. Page 11 E. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family attached and detached dwellings are listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a principal permitted use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. The proposed use, with two housing types, is mostly consistent with the purpose statement of the residential district in that a range of housing opportunities and a variety of dwelling types would be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC 11-2A-1 and 11-6A-1. However, proposing to rezone a portion of the property to the R-15 zone when R-8 zone would suffice merely for the reason of being eligible for private streets is not consistent with the purpose statement of UDC 11-3F-1. While this isn't an uncommon practice, this section states that "it is not the intent to approve private streets for single- family, duplex and/or townhouse developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development" as no single family attached are in this area and no common mews are proposed. Further, a limited gated community as specified in the UDC is 50 or fewer homes. As noted below, the applicant is proposing that 112 homes utilize the proposed private street in an area that doesn't have an established street network and limited access. Therefore, the director has denied the private street application (see below for analysis). F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 328 building lots, 40 common lots, and 14 other lots (i.e. common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 80.46 acres of land. Development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Lots in the western portion proposed for R-8 meet the minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. with a 40' lot frontage. Although the lots in the 36.6 -acre eastern portion proposed for R-15 meet the dimensional standards of that zone district (minimum lot size of 2,000 sq. ft. and no minimum frontage requirement) as presently proposed, they would also meet the minimum requirements of the R-8 zoning district. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3) Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face. Block length is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 -6C -3F. Block faces should not exceed 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley unless a pedestrian connection is provided, then the block face may be extended up to 1,000' in length. The City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length where block design is constrained by certain site conditions as specified in UDC 11-6C-3F.3b. The face of Block 9 on the north side of the Farr Lateral is 1,000'+/- and does not contain a pathway or intersecting street or alley. This is also true of the section of Block 5 that is south of private street A of more than 850 feet. Council approval would be needed, or the plat would need to be revised to comply with the standard. At the northeast corner of the site, a street ending in a cul-de-sac is proposed which will likely exceed the maximum 500' length allowed in UDC 11 -6C -3B.4 depending on how the property to the north develops. Staff had recommended an internal street access to this portion of the development rather than the sole access being provided via a stub street from the north. The applicant has responded due to the topography in this area, they cannot provide the recommended internal access. However, just to the north of this cul-de-sac, the plat shows a golf cart path in this general area. Twelve (12) common driveways are proposed; such driveways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -6C -3D. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common Page 12 driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street, the driveway should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway. Address signage should be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. Where two (2) common driveways are proposed that adjoin, bollards (or other barrier approved by the Fire Dept.) should be placed at the common lot line to prevent a through connection between streets. The applicant has submitted a phasing plan. The phasing plan shows nine phases, with the first phase occurring directly adjacent to S. Eagle Rd at the proposed public street. Number of lots being built out vary between 59 at the first phase, to 23 at the last phase. Phase 8 and Phase 9 are both disconnected from the rest of the subdivision, although staff does believe an access could be constructed across the Farr Lateral between Phase 1 or 2 and Phase 9. UDC 11-3F-4 prohibits common driveways off of private streets whereas this proposal includes three common driveways served by private streets. The applicant has requested alternative compliance from this standard. G. Access (UDC 11-3A-3 The existing roadways in this area are rural in nature. Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Improvements and a signal are planned for the Lake Hazel/Eagle Rd. intersection in 2023. Lake Hazel is planned to be widened to 5 -lanes between Eagle and Cloverdale Roads in 2024; and to 5 -lanes from Locust Grove to Eagle Roads between 2026 and 2030; no improvements are planned to Eagle Rd. south of Lake Hazel abutting the site. The applicant will be required to construct 5 -foot -wide sidewalk on S. Eagle Rd abutting the site. One (1) public street, Street A, is proposed for access via S. Eagle Rd. as a collector street to the intersection of Street C, also a public street. Three (3) stub streets are proposed at the north, and two (2) stub street are proposed at the south boundaries of the site for future extension in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. One of these southern stubs is a secondary emergency access to E. Vantage Pointe Ln. to be constructed with the first phase of development. There is also a cul-de-sac at the extreme northeast serving 15 additional lots, which is intended to connect to a public road through the recently approved Pura Vida Ridge Ranch. This area is shown as Phase 8 and does not connect to the rest of the Skybreak Subdivision, except for the connected pathway system. There are two southern roads shown to connect from the subject property to E. Vantage Pointe Lane to the south. E. Vantage Point Lane is a private road, and the applicant has only demonstrated the legal right to use this road for emergency access (Inst. #2020-063349); public access is not allowed. This is adequate for emergency access to occur from the cul-de-sac shown at the end of the public street shown as Street J. However, this application also shows an additional 23 lots being served from a double cul-de-sac shown as Phase 9. The applicant has not demonstrated they have primary legal access to these lots via E. Vantage Pointe Lane. The applicant has responded that they intend to eventually obtain this access and will build out this later phase when it is obtained, but staff is concerned with an application which proposes annexing and zoning 23 lots into the City without proof of access. The applicant should construct a roadway across the Farr Lateral to provide access to the portion of the development for better integration. The Fire Department has noted in a letter dated February 16, 2021 that they are concerned with a large subdivision with only one access out to S. Eagle Rd. Two of the three northern stubs go to properties within unincorporated Ada County which are not proposed for development at this time. The third northern stub only serves Phase 8 which does not connect to the rest of the subdivision. If access from the north via Eagle Rd. is blocked, in the event of an emergency, emergency vehicles would have to travel an additional 3.5+/- miles around the square mile to access the site creating a potential life safety Page 13 issue due to a delayed response time. Staff has recommended the applicant pursue a northern access to allow access from this subdivision via the public road in the Pura Vida Subdivision and to E. Lake Hazel Rd, but the applicant has responded that due to topography this is not feasible, although the applicant has managed to configure a golf cart path to the golf course at the north. In addition, the Fire Department has mentioned the majority of the subdivision is outside of the 5 -minute response area, and the nearest station (Station 4) has a low reliability rating. This would improve if and when the southwestern fire station adjacent to Discovery Park is constructed in 2023. The applicant has submitted a phasing plan which shows each phase has at least two accesses for emergency service, but as mentioned, except for Phase 8 at the northeast corner, all the other phases rely on only S. Eagle Rd for access. Staff is aware that access will improve in this area over time however, it is contingent on other properties developing in the area to provide the necessary road network. A combination of public and private streets are proposed for access within the development — public streets are proposed on the west and private streets serving 112 lots are proposed on the east end of the subdivision. Three (3) common driveways are proposed for access off private streets (see analysis below). The applicant has provided sections of the private streets with this plat application (see Section VI). Although the plat does not indicate exactly which private street cross sections are proposed in which area, the street sections show private streets as narrow as 27', none of which include sidewalks. Since the time of the pre -application meetings, staff has responded that staff does not support this many lots being served by private streets. This is because this results in streets that would pass the maintenance costs on to the homeowners through the HOA, as ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were financial constraints. Staff has requested the developer state the reason for requesting private streets other than the additional costs to build them to the standard template, and the only responses staff has received thus far is that there is a demographic of senior home buyers that prefer the security a gated community can provide and that the gates and private streets will provide a more intimate setting. Staff agrees that there are probably buyers that would prefer gated communities and private streets, but still does not understand why narrow private streets are preferable to streets built to standard templates and containing landscaping and sidewalk. As noted above, staff finds the proposal is not a limited gated community, exceeds more than 50 homes. Therefore, the plat should be resigned to incorporate public streets for the entire development. As noted below the applicant has requested alternative compliance (ALT) to allow 112 homes as proposed. The director has denied the applicant's ALT request. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE The applicant proposes 112 gated lots, and 3 common driveways off a private street. UDC 11-3F-4 states a proposed (gated) development shall have no more than 50 dwelling units, and no common driveways shall be allowed off of a private street. However, 11-3F-4 also allows the director to approve, or recommend approval of alternative design or construction standards when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed overall design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards of this article and shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Requests for alternative compliance are allowed only when one (1) or more of the following conditions exist: a. Topography, soil, vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full compliance is impossible or impractical; b. The site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot; c. Safety considerations make alternative compliance desirable; d. Other regulatory agencies or departments having jurisdiction are requiring design standards that conflict with the requirements of this article; Page 14 e. The proposed design includes innovative design features based on "new urbanism", "neotraditional design", or other architectural and/or site designs that promote walkable and mixed use neighborhoods; f. Additional environmental quality improvements would result from the alternative compliance. In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application, the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The applicant's alternative compliance letter mentions there is a demographic ofsenior home buyers that prefer the security a gated community can provide and that the gates andprivate streets will provide a more intimate setting. Staff agrees that there is probably a demographic that would prefer gated communities, but this is not a condition required for alternative compliance. The Director finds the applicant has not demonstrated the need for a private versus public streets as noted above. The plat indicates private street sections with no sidewalks and minimal landscaping, whereas ACHD templates require 5' sidewalks and landscaping. Also, the applicant proposes alternative compliance to allow three common driveways from the private streets, whereas this is not allowed by UDC 11-3F-4-6. Staff does not understand how what is being proposed is an equal or superior means to meeting requirements. Providing narrow private streets with no sidewalks, minimal landscaping, and common driveways from these private streets is not an innovative design features that promotes walkable neighborhoods. Finally, as was already mentioned, gating the community will also slow response times when there are already fire access concerns, which would be materially detrimental to the public welfare. H. Parking (UDC 11-3C : Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. A parking plan is included in Section VIII.J that depicts a total of 334 on -street parking spaces along public and private streets; parking along private streets must be approved by the Fire Marshall. 1. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan (PMP) depicts a north/south segment of the City's multi -use pathway system along the east side of the subject property and along the south side of the Farr Lateral at the southwest corner of the site. The Applicant has worked with the Park's Dept. pathway coordinator on the design proposed along the east boundary; the pathway along the south side of the Farr Lateral is consistent with the PMP. The pathways are required to be placed in a 14 -foot wide public pedestrian easement or a note should be added to the plat which allows public access in the common lots intended for pathways. Ten -foot (10') wide segments of the City's multi -use pathway are proposed within the street buffer along Eagle Rd., along the south side of the Farr Lateral, along the Ten Mile Creek and the northern portion of the east boundary of the site and a golf cart path. Other pathway connections are also proposed for pedestrian interconnectivity and access to common areas within the development. A pathway connection is proposed between the pathway on the eastern portion of the site to the sidewalks along internal public streets on the west end of the site. A total of 5,167 linear feet of pathways are proposed in this development (see exhibit in Section VI). All pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaped per the standards in UDC 11 -3B -12C. Page 15 Where pathways are proposed in common driveways (i.e. Lot 25, Block 9) they should be located in separate common lots with landscaping on either side in accord with UDC 11 -3B -12C. I Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): A 10' pathway is proposed along S. Eagle Rd. with a combination of detached and attached sidewalks along the internal public streets. No sidewalks are required or proposed along private streets except for along private Streets K & S where a detached sidewalk is proposed for a pedestrian connection between the pathway on the east end of the site to the sidewalk along public Street I on the west end of the site. K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17 : Eight -foot wide parkways with detached sidewalks are proposed along the entry street (Street A) and in a few other areas; sidewalks are mostly attached with no parkways in this development. All parkways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -7C. L. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 25 -foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to S. Eagle Rd., an arterial street; a 20 -foot wide street buffer is required along Street A where it is designated as a collector street (i.e. from Eagle Rd. to the intersection of Street C), landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -7C. A 50' foot +/- wide buffer is proposed along Eagle Rd. and a 30 -foot wide buffer is proposed along the collector street (Street A) landscaped with grass and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs in excess of the minimum standards. Parkways are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -7C. Landscaping is proposed within parkways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -12C. Landscaping is proposed along pathways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3E. Landscaping is depicted in common areas in excess of UDC standards except along the Farr Lateral and Lot 46, Block 5 (the ridge lot with the trail). There are existing trees on the site within proposed building lots that are proposed to be removed that may require mitigation. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins, the City Arborist, to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC. 5. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3B is required. Based on the area of the proposed plat (80+/- acres), a minimum of 8 acres of qualified open space should be provided. The Applicant landscape plan notes the development provides 14.99 acres (or 18.4%) of qualified open space. This open space consists of parks, street buffers, linear open space, parkways and common areas greater than 50' x 100' in area, including the slope area on the east end of the site (see qualified open space exhibit in Section VI). Although the open space complies with the minimum UDC standards in regard to dimensions, Page 16 some of the open space area being credited consists of unusable arterial/collector street buffers and end caps with parkways, the easement for the Farr Lateral, and areas that aren't centrally located for easy access. It is staff's opinion that the applicant has the opportunity to reconfigure the plat to consolidate additional open space to make it more accessible and useable. UDC 11 -3G -3-E requires that at a minimum, common open space areas shall include one (1) deciduous shade tree per eight thousand (8,000) square feet and lawn, either seed or sod. There are areas being credited on the applicant's open space exhibit as qualified open space, such as land within the Farr Lateral easement, and all the challenging and steeply sloping land in Lot 45, Block 5 at the east that do not meet the minimum landscape requirements. In addition, the pathway shown along Lot 45, Block 5 would need to be landscaped with one tree per 100 linear feet of pathway as required per UDC 11-3B-3-12 in order to be credited for qualified open space. N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G: Based on the area of the proposed plat (80+/- acres), a minimum of four (4) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3G -3C. Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter/shade structure, pathways, two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC requirements. Dog owner facilities are required to be improved with a dog washing station with a drain to sanitary sewer system and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal; or fencing to enclose a minimum 0.75 acre of open space for an off -leash dog park and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal per UDC 11-3G-3C.h. Although the proposed amenities meet the minimum standards, they are primarily located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site or in the gated portion of the development and are not centrally located (see details in Section VII.D), which Staff is of the opinion is not ideal. Staff would prefer the open space be reconfigured to allow more useable open space and amenities toward the center of the development. Further, UDC 11 -3G -3D.3 requires common open space and site amenities to be located in areas of high visibility to avoid hidden areas and corners, dark areas, unusable space and reduce the opportunity for crime. Staff does believe the sports park, playground and pathways are adequate amenities, but as mentioned above, believes more useable open space and centrally located amenities should be incorporated into this project. O. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. P. Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15) An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided with development to each lot within the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. Irrigation water is provided from the New York Irrigation District. Q. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Farr Lateral runs across the southwest corner of this site within a common lot (Lot 51, Block 9) and Ten Mile Creek runs along the northeast corner of the site. The Applicant proposes to leave these waterways open and improve them as linear open space with a 10 -foot wide multi -use pathway. However, if these waterways are intended to be improved and credited as linear open spaces, they should be accessible and usable, and Page 17 landscaped in accordance with UDC 11-313-12 and UDC 11 -3G -3-E, including one tree per 100 pathway feet and one tree per 8,000 square feet of open area, as well as vegetated with seed or sod. R. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A -6C and 11-3A-7. Six-foot tall open vision vinyl slat top fencing is proposed along connection pathways and the Farr Lateral, 4 - foot tall open vision wrought iron fencing is proposed adjacent to the dog parks and 6 -foot tall vinyl fencing is proposed along street buffers and the perimeter of the subdivision as shown on the landscape plan. UDC 1I - 3A -6C.3 requires open laterals to be fenced with an open vision fence at least 6 -foot in height and having an 11 -gauge, 2 -inch mesh or other construction equivalent in ability to deter access to the lateral. Staff recommends open fencing is installed between the lateral and the pathway to preserve public safety. S. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations of the types of homes planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VI. Homes depicted are predominantly single -story, some with a bonus room, with a few that are 2 -stories in height proposed on the east end of the development on or near the rim. All but 44 of the homes are proposed to be restricted to single -story with the option of a bonus room; the larger lots on the east end of the development are not restricted to single -story homes (see exhibit in Section VII.J). Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials (i.e. horizontal and vertical siding and stucco) with stone/brick veneer accents. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested annexation and preliminary plat based on the Findings in section IX. and the Director has denied the private street and alternative compliance based on the Findings in section IX. Page 18 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description & Exhibit Map (date 1/20/21) AAk 5; wtzoth Lar1d 5urvinInq, SLC F- (aC45) 3E'5.8 I M _- 1206) :53b- 5 +� � YYi�']fFrl r7�F SCI d�JG If -T, mrr.t ID � �r[! I I Skybreak Annexation Legal Description BASIS OF BEARINGS 15 S. 01,12'S2" VV. betwRnn a fount# alurn4wm tap marking the W114 carr+er and 6 found aluminum cav marking the NW Comer of 5ect.4n ap, T. 2 J., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada (:aunty, Idaho, A parcel of land locates In the 51{2 nF Me 1444Ij4 0 Section 4 Township 2 1413"r Range 1 East Boise meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly dlesur�tw as Fprl : COMMENCING at an akiminum cap marking the NVV ctrrher of said Section 4; Th€fxa S, 00=" W., ccindderk with the west line of Said NWIIJ and the cenieriine of S. Eagle Road, 1342.07 feet to an aiurnlnum cap PLS 13550, mar*ing the N1�1<6 cora-Rror said Seetkon 4 and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence S. BcrS2'22rr f ., to incident with Rha ma IrTl-, of sold 5112 cf the NYli114r a dl-qance od 1321.03 feet tD a SfB" rewrlcap PI -5 645. matking thP- NVV1ft6 Comer of wick Sedion 4j, Thence N, B9°56'41"' E., colnoderit with said narttr kirm, 13Z1.1D feet to aI 516" reber/cap PIS 4347, rnarkir% the CN11tE corner of said Seclran 4; Thence 5- 0G137'g7` W-, cainudLIA whir t1 -re nasi Mrle of mid NVVV4, a &Wrica of 1333,72 k -et to a 3�4' n4bar{cap PtS 645, marl ing the C1/4 Corder' of Salo Seton 4; Then0e N. 894W12" W,r oncldent with the South tlrre of Sald Sectron 4, a dl�Wvr a of 2632,7[ reef to an kgoo aluminum rte, marking the VVIJ4 of said Section 4; Thenpe N. 00017'57" f_,, cvirlcldent With said vlest Inner 1316.27 Feet to the EGINT OF REGINIMING. The above dewibed parcel contains 00.4GI acrm More :ok N -m. Page 19 Page 20 R _ _•_H , -h_:x�r_ »r -- — -- — -- - — -- — .�---- - 2 - [ � . & � � § rq | � �( ¥ i ■% @ � �. | � i - |§ � �§ . | --- — - — -- — --- �- — -- �� _rte Page 20 B. Rezoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map (date: 1/20/21) L AAtlii, awwct1 Ladd 5urveyinL3, LLC x , L - r F (2L15a 39th •b 113-4 F: r-2081 398.31 0511574 � k0130 V,�oMilgtap eve 6nm�rk Q 8561 r' Skybreak R-8 Zoning Description ► '� GASM OF BEARINGS Is 109122 SZ" W. benveEn a found ailuminum cap marking the W 114 corme and a FUL Md alominwrn cap marklog the NAV mmer-of Seabn 40 T. Z 14., R- 1 E„ B,M„ Ada County. Wahm A pam6 of rand iocaLed in Che S1{2 of the NV11�4 & Seu Ian +i ToWpiship I N'Dithr Range 1 exist, Bal5e Meridian, Ada (:aunty, Tdahr), mora particular+y tk.6hvi;hed as Follows: COMMEi~IQFIG at nn aluminuro cap marking thp- NW c-drner of said 5action 4; Thincv 5. 4"1V52" W.{ coincident Mth tl a west lime al said NW114. a distance or 1352.07 feet to an alumrrurn -i;ap PLS 13559, mark{ng the 141116 turner C saad SeOjon 4 and the POINT OF BEGINNING1 The-nw 5. WP52'17" F,, coincident with the north iine of sand 51 2 of the NWI14. a distance or 132103 feet tQ a 5}8" rebarftap KS 645, matking the NW1/16 corner of - a -W 5echgrr 4; Thence %N. 139P5W41" F., a�dncldent wO said north Ilne, 2Li1.71J Feet; Thence S, W1112 52" U, paraMlel wrdr said west 11ne, 1137;56 Foot; Vhencae K. WV{p8" W -r 5.+43 Fe+etr Fhence S. 001,12'5Z" W., parallO wb sold wit Mine, 4S4.'M foes; Ther' N. 89°41" 3" W.r 73,73 feek; 17 -hence N. 711155'29" W, 35.46 fleet; 1174ena.� N. 9V44250 W., tP.79 feet, f ienee S. 00012'!iV W -r paralbel With sold west line, 146,02 ftvtr Thence S. 89047,0$rt E,, ax fit; Thence S. 40°12'52" W., pamile v d said west line, 601.95 reat ko the south IFno of said NW1�4; Thence N. X90WI Zn VV,, m1mddenr wO said -sDuth line, M4.42 feet hn air dltgfbbe aiurmnuMn cap, mark+ng bt}c WI/4 sir Sold vection 4; TheKe N. 001�12'52" E., eoinddent with salt# wesr liner 1326.27 Feet to the PRINT OF REGy3l,M"ING_ The above desctibizd Varcel aontaim 411158 acres more cir less. Page 21 a� or �armuaer s au�,rsr w #rax 4 r � I rAo ow I Y a I I IAN= t .la I .f�j I I I a� or �armuaer s au�,rsr w #rax 4 r � I rAo I Y r � Page 22 AA5awLaot � L-Srid orvEyinq, LLC - --717- 'r' PL: x208) 39&-,A- 10.4 f =81 31-�b 5 10'5 � =030 3, Wmh5rigtqm Awl. r --i, , i- .�8G1 7 Jt� I Q va S OF VD Skybreak -15 Zoning Descriptio SASS OF BEAMAIG$ Ls S. V12'52" W. between a f--oUird aluminum cap marking the W114 tamer arkd a far,nd slumirrum rap marking the NV4 corner -of Sect•an 4, f. � N, R. t 1E,, 13,M„ Ada Qounty, Idaho A pEatel of land IdtAW in the 5112 of tttie NVw114 of Mian 4 T-ownth"rp 2 Northr Ranee 1 E&sL Boise Meridian, Ada Gold qty, ZdaW, mare pamr<ula0y descritid as rollDws: CO MMEf+lCING at an alwniriqjrn cap marking the NW comer Df said Mian 4; -r'Mena 5. noi2'52" W., ❑ Inddent vyIth the west llrie of said NVw1/q, a d1€Wry or 1352,07 Tha m arh aiuminLr m cap PLS 13556, marKing [he N 1116 cornier of sawl Secoon -T; l- ence 5. 6g"52'72" E., uDWdent with the north Ilne of said 5112 of the NVV111. a distafWe or 1321,03 feet Lu 6 5JM" re-bar/cap PL -5 645, FTwrking the NW1116 cormr Df nld Section 4; 'rhevrce N. W5641" �-:, eaineident with said -iorth 111M, 263.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Theoct wntlnuiny 74, 641355'41" F., coincident wihh sand north Iirn�, 1.059.31 Feet W a 5j8" rabarjtao PLS A34j, rri,rking the CN3/16 Cwher of Fad Sermon 4; Ttrrrice S. (MI13707" W.. tn+ncideni:v kh the east ill re of 5ald Setuon I, i� di€farce of ]333,72 feat ha o 3! 4" rebar/(mp RS 645, marking the 0114 ourrwr a pica Section 4; Tf emoe N 891148'12" W,, roincrOerit with the sotO lhne or sa-d NW LMP a di5tance of 7 M.29 fLTt', Thalou N. 001112'52" E.. parallel with Said WeA ilreF 6111.95 reetr Thence N. 99°47'08" W.. 22,31 fit; Thence N. M111732" E,, par -81101l with said west qne 1-46.02 Wtr Thwxe S. 89"44"25' E., ! 57.79 feet, Tt anum S. 71°5529" L, 3.x.46 feet; Thence S. 54114123" E-, 13.11 feet, Thonm N. OUL'12'52" E., parallai Wit-, said west km2, 454.70 feel; Ttxnc>e S. 13904TGG" L. 5.43 feet„ Thence N. COP 12'S2' E -r parallel with said weir lint 137.56 feet tX3 Ve POINT OF BEG3NNIqG. he above de5cribed oarcei contains 36.604 acres MOrR or iess. Page 23 Ampow -i- Page 24 4 - QF 44UM+ - - pp I J.326 qI ' I id � � I I I I w �i I I I I� I I ' r I I rw I im rn I I I - - � JW QG'LtST'€ 4%;M_ w 4q aJ rri I h i 1 ILIR's 111 T Ampow -i- Page 24 C. Preliminary Plat (date: 12/11/2020) 5M'52'M'E 12919Q' NN-,' E !?'AV . L 3 + 3 Y � • i � � n •i �Y p 5i i „ M l5 if R } ^ �- __- __ 17• R ,X TP ------ i i I y YY 'li f � lY 4l ' l• 6 Ili � ® - # 7 _� YJNMl4 Id I �` ' ' rIM8 �� -- — k k 1! �• - I MG• IIP 1A lald •Y•I 1+j[F Id — R M N iY + N _ in ! rY 4 R R I % I llF IN •X 1N _ iSl _—SiBf 4F�x,4'- r Y I X �—'1HPY�IIYIq_ , ■ I + C m lY � IdY Id 371 i t — 1 M x µ y p—•n�swagq — — 1 w ` • lY E 'R amY�� • ® i• '� Ne47E'x671' 12Y7.76' N�'�8'18•W 1319.36' A Landscape Plan (date: 12/11/2020) Page 25 E. Gated versus Non Gated (date: 2/11/2020) All streets shown in gated portion are private streets Traditional i�hborhoGd Gated Community F. Open Space Exhibit (date: 12/30/2020) l L 0 G. Zoning Exhibit (date: 12/10/2020) --AMW R-8 Single 717_�/ Story, Attached I, It —77--z- R-15 "R -t5 Gated Single — Story. Single R-8 Single Story, a i- 1 " ��(-Family Single Family _ F R-15 Gated, 1 �Single Family -Custom M _ H. PhasinLy Plan (date 2/10/21) I. Proposed Private Street Sections EllGA TrG li PRiVATE-YMM7sE,-n4P+ATC,ATMIDLU-- Z L L `TMI If PRMVATE MaTSKMN WITH MEDM rjLMD ." 3 ' 74E ,fr T-- .�LE PP3..D 29FTVATESTREMM� Ad -,CE , Jr W, - 'ALE FF D L JL 2,TPRIVATE ST;IET (S MEETS L, M. N 0, P. G. P) io ....0 -. -Tr . 1C M -.v - L M.AL . �Ibljl VWAL 2-' PRIVATE M—E—Ef Wj DETACHED WALK ON2 :9DF- (9MEES 14 AND S) :1 {ALE- � T T ' 4Z F-3.0 Page 28 J. Phasing Description (date: 12/10/21) PROJECTED PROJECT TIMELINE Milestone Date 2021- • City Council Approval est. Aril 2021 ■ Eagle Road - Amigr to Victor Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2022 - 2021 ■ 20 Homes Occupied 151 home available April 2022 Au ust 2022 2023 - ■ Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road Intersection Construction 2023 ■ Eagle Road - Victory to Amity Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2023 ■ Fire Station #8 - Completed and Staffed December 2023 ■ 50 Homes Occupied September 2023 Z0z - ■ Lake Hazel Road - Ea le to Cloverdale Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2024 ■ 100 Homes Occupied June 2024 2025 - ■ 150 Hoines Occupied June 2025 2026 - ■ 200 Halves Occupied June 2026 2027- 0 250 Homes Occupied June 2027 2028 - ■ 300 Homes Occupied June 2028 2029- 0 Completion December 2029 Page 29 K. Proposed Amenities (date: 2/10/21 — please refer to Narrative for more details) U Large 314 -Acre, Tot Park (Block 9, Lot 52) — The 35,142 5gft 5kybreak Neighborhood park V"Id contain the following recreation facilities: • Play Structure • Seating Benches • Shade Structure • Climbing Rocks • Large Grass play area • Attractive Landscaping • Playground fencing for safety Page 30 pathways—The Skyhreak Neighborhood will include the following pedestrian pathways: • 10' Wide Regional Pathway Along Eagle Road — 1,326 LF • 10' Wide Regional Pathway Along the Farr Lateral — 1,120 LF • 10' Wide Regional Pathway Along Ten Mile Creek - 526 LF • 10' Wide Golf Cart Path - 760 LF • Natural Path — 1,435 LF Pedestrian pathways within the 5kybreak Neighborhood will total nearly one mile in length. C. Dog Parks (Black 2, Lot I and Black 5, Lot 12 1) - The 5kylareak Neigh barhood pa rk wil I oanta i n two (2-) .114 Ac small dog,, dog parks th at wil l incl ud e ; h e fol lowing: • Open Vision Fencing ■ Dual Gate System ■ Seating Areas • Attractive Landscal)ing D. Entry Park (Block 5, lot 114) — TI rnain Collector Roadway will terminate in an attractively landscaped open space that will provide for an aesthetically appeasing entry statement that will convey a sense of arrival. • Specimen Tree Plantings • Seating Areas • Attractive landscaping • Pathway Page 31 E. Open Sports Park (Blo(k 5, Lot 97)—This park will include: • Large 1-a cre ope n s ports a res • Pathway Connection • Seating Areas • Attractive Landscaping F. Landscaped Passive Open Spaces —Located throughout the Lleigh borhood: + Attractive Landscaping * Buffering of side yards Premier Signage and Entry Monuments -7. H. Pedestrian Connection Exhibit Pi:. ----man Coineclion Internal Pathway System Rno6r.al Pathway i Pedestrian GoV Cart Path Page 32 L. Parking Plan On -Street Parking 334 Spaces Page 33 M. Common Driveway Exhibits is I 72.Do, REM SEM-i3K IVP LOT 211 7AIIS5 DIRECT STREET AC= DRIYEWAV LOCAM ON M29M SIVE OF LLIT. za K '1. :MW DDMK* Mi 3V WATW AMP &MVV*r TR hi Mi0a Vr rage J4 AIER 13 14 LOT 13 AtcctN www fl ON EAST 51DE OF, �T M 11.0' 90E SMU.k TYP LqT 15 TAKE. 1Vr STREET VF.EF'5 -WIVIDW Li CATER Oki EAST SIDE OF LLT 1 5 L -r— — — — — — — — — -- j -- — — — — — — — — 30Aii FRONT sErEaxc ------------- 17 - — -- — — — — — — — — — — -------------- LOT IE AMEM Q�� LDCAMD DH 5— DFIF rage J4 AIER 13 14 LOT 13 AtcctN www fl ON EAST 51DE OF, �T M 11.0' 90E SMU.k TYP LqT 15 TAKE. 1Vr STREET VF.EF'5 -WIVIDW Li CATER Oki EAST SIDE OF LLT 23 . --T-- - ......... —T -----I - Wr 51 TABES E E 4- IN, VGE he Ess. EMWW LWAlED METSLEV Tf p Gh EkTr SILT GF LM. 34 I 35 3T RENMEM -M FWEeUML- AMESS MY 33 F - — — — — — — — — — — — WT 24 TAXES DRECT -rRErr A= EIRNIEft' MUM) 15N M5KTH 9ME UF UNT 12.-W RE&W 5Eradry Typ ,El 26 LOT �A TWE -9 PREU YMEEF 27 1 AECEISS. DMVEWJ LOCATED ON Ehsr -%PC U LJYT. rages:) 12.M' KAN SMW-Js TI& 21 Sm 32 LLT 2'TMES DIREL7 ETREEr LOT M TALKES OlFlEcr STREETArca:,. iNvED-YA, L%'AlEt ON ZMU H 'ADE OF U7r. AVEM ONVW Lrlftmr ON 50LITH YDE OF L(Yr. — — — — — — — — — — — WT 24 TAXES DRECT -rRErr A= EIRNIEft' MUM) 15N M5KTH 9ME UF UNT 12.-W RE&W 5Eradry Typ ,El 26 LOT �A TWE -9 PREU YMEEF 27 1 AECEISS. DMVEWJ LOCATED ON Ehsr -%PC U LJYT. rages:) 20JW' F-40NT LITT 67 TME5 hlLTkF*E IETHA�K ADM�E. URNEWhl LOQATED a-vr lunE OF LpT -- - - - -- =~ - - - -- scravlx rIp 70 .Dwf, NWE/Nn nArHftk� 72 MT 77 ME% ;'I!ErT Z;MEEr mirvE-w LocATED !i . sun $im or L, -r. F 73 TIO - - --------- - - --- 72 FI -^T 73��u MS DR ICEE�S. MWO, AT H WE ULLM. 73 1 74 7� ----------- '---------- - -- Page 36 77 5.00, Llr.a DLIFFEk � Mp LOT r lfiT Si TakEs A= sWED I ° A[f:E55. DRIVEWAY LUGATEn On yORTH SrE OF L07 I' I I Ir — —— — --- I �Y L 15 — — - — — �o.00' ro►IworJ T1RI E � � I I � I I Ii.V6� REAR I 7,EF9w T'yp �O�CMI FWWT II I� I LQT IRS TAKES +lRE A ZHEFf hMESS, DnNEWAl LOCATED GH WE -r SIDE OF LY I I I I I I I I I 193 I I I I I I III I I I I I L PED PATPWAY I I I I L6T 77 LNd3 DIRECT 314ESF ArCES5. 15MW"Y U3i-AMM f'H EOST ME OF LM I77 I I ,.0, gut sEr+�R I I l f r1 f 761 I I i 157 I I I 15@ I I 1 s I I 4� flT'TEL1 70 ESiE�:EMV X�rESs ON I I S I I I T80 -----rl i 79 x ' Y i LAT 1 FY T11x DIRECT STit ET - prrFSS C d,! LCU4TEL7 ON 9DLn SIDE CF 758 I-� QW REM SEFRK_ 1 S9 i f r1 f LOT Y59 UKEI DIIIE�T ST?EE7 I XStiE53. u ryEraY L "r TE- 9H -%LrH 5IDE DF LOiI'�•.%}:�- —-—— — — — — — - a I Page 37 LAT +Iia iN5E5 ]RE.CT STT+EET Jlrf:E55. "YBOY L"KA' ] I ON EAST SIDE Cf LDT I I I I 154 1.3 I I { I I I 71 iJ74' 5f6E 'RACK T* - I LOI 19 TWES UREGT STREET hMESS. DRf4EW-%v UXATEO .4W WWH NPE :]F LOT I+:• I I {f Lm 13 T-wEs OIFREr7 %MEET ACCEYS. DMEWAV LZATED ']M WEST ti41E rW LETT. I I I I ----T—� I I I 1r La I � � 0.05 CtlM hl M 5 WME ---- — — — — ------ Page 3 8 i'7 gwr ■� f1 ��1 �► Tri Ark .yrs I1!■ �,f ■� ''! 1R.. ��:�� .moi r 1�1t� 1 il-f_I / • * ` 0 ■ mI ` _ >s-- � h �� ii it � � II� ■■ ■■ �n� � �� imm win vow � � � ter• � ,. r s 11!•ilril A ra■i !ill 'w ■ !�■ i _ �,l I I �I�Y��I�I�lti�l�ll1�4SIlIN� I. F 1MAl i I ., Fa W, IN Wild 11 1 rir3 I �rl - MM-UNLMJEbww WIM-O'S, Was. I a 1.1 M 4b 06 20-M ML.IM lams. aim , OM a -IL, I I - al VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION No conditions of approval are included due to Staff's recommendation of denial. B. PUBLIC WORDS No conditions of approval are included due to Staff's recommendation of denial. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https: //weblink. meridiancity. oLvlWebLinkIDocView. aspx?id=223367&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCitX D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https: //weblink. meridiancit E. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=222919&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https: //weblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=214368&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1 F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) https: //weblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=193035&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCity G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https: //weblink. meridianciU. oLvlWebLinkIDocView. aspx?id=222788&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCitX H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACRD) https: //weblink. meridiancioy. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=219402&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCitX L NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) https: //weblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id= 193631&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCitX J. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https: //weblink. meridianciU. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=219402&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCitX K. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) https: //weblink. meridiancioy. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=203469&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCitX L. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT REVIEW: https: //weblink. meridianciU. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id= 203 755&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCitX M. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) https.Ilweblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLink,lDocView. aspx?id=222984&dbid=0&repo MeridianCity Page 42 N. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https:llweblink. meridiancioy. orz/WebLinkIDocView. aspx?id=222907&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianCity IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11 -5B -3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission, the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan density recommendations of 3-8 dwelling units per acre for the majority of the site except for the southern portion adjacent to the Vantage Pointe Subdivision where there is an inadequate transition in lot sizes. Staff finds zoning the property to the R-15 district for purpose of allowing private streets is not suitable for providing the necessary infrastructure. As mentioned in Section V above, the 30 attached dwelling units would contribute to more diversity of houses, but the remaining 299 would not. The development does exceed what is required in regard to amenities, however stafffinds some of the open space is not the useable open space as anticipated by the Plan and believes better orientation and consolidation of open space could occur. The property is near the fringe of the City only adjacent to the City limits in a select few places; this development would not be considered infill. The proposed private streets serving a significant portion of the site would not meet the intent of the Plan in regard to requiring urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including sidewalks. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the lack of variety in housing types (i.e. all single-family detached homes except for 30 attached) and lack of diversity in lot sizes is not consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts, which states a range of housing opportunities should be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment could be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The significant portion of the development proposed for private streets may pass the maintenance costs on to homeowners through the HOA, and because private streets are proposed with inadequate templates, ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were financial constraints. Also, the Fire District has voiced concerns with service to this development until the southern fire station is constructed, has concerns with all but Phase 8 having S. Eagle Rd as the sole point of access, and does not prefer the proposed number of lots being served by gates. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and Both West Ada County School District and the Community Development School Impact Review indicate this proposal would increase the number of students on schools that are already over capacity. Page 43 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City at this time as it is located near the fringe of the City and may not maximize existing public services. Further, Stafffinds the design of the proposed development plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as discussed above in Section V. B. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6): In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that the proposed plat is not in substantial conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to maximizing public services by prioritizing infill development over parcels on the fringe, provision of a variety of housing types, density in the LDR designated area, transitional densities, adequate provision of services (Fire Dept), usable open space, and construction of infrastructure without sidewalks, etc. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available and can be extended to accommodate the proposed development although services would be maximized by development of infill or underdeveloped parcels already in the City instead of on the fringe as is the subject property (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i. e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. Public testimony has been submitted from adjacent residents to the south on 1 -acre lots stating there is not an adequate transition in lot sizes or zoning to theirproperties/subdivision. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Page 44 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff finds the proposed development preserves the natural topography/hillside along the eastern boundary of the site. Staff is unaware of any other significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-5): In order to approve the application, the Director shall find the following: A. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The private streets meet the design requirements of not connecting to an arterial street, allowing sufficient maneuvering for emergency vehicles, and meeting the minimum width of 27 feet. However, the proposal exceeds the limitation of no more than 50 units being served by a gated development, and three common driveways are proposed whereas UDE 1103F-4-5 states common driveways cannot be allowed on private streets. B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons, property, or uses in the vicinity The Director has safety concerns in regard to whether there could be pedestrian safety issues with residents usingprivate streets with no sidewalks and believes, at the minimum, there should be sidewalks on at least one side, or pathways that connect to all residential lots in the gated area. The Fire Department has commented they do not prefer 112 gated lots. C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Proposing private streets with no sidewalks does not Comprehensive Plan policies such as requiring new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets, developing a connected, comfortable, and comprehensive network of multi-purpose pathways, ensuring safe routes and access, encouraging safe, physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists, and fostering a walkable and bikeable community and providing necessary infrastructure. D. The proposed residential development (if applicable) is a mew or gated development. The proposed development is a gated development, but exceeds the provisions of UDC 11 -3F -4.b which limits gated developments to no more than 50 dwelling units. Page 45