Loading...
Minutes - 2006 - Planning & Zoning - 04/03/2006 - Regular THE CITY OF EAGLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2006 Minutes ORIGINAL 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 5 :40 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: LIEN, JACOBS, PIERCE. Absent: MARKS, ASPITARTE 3. CONSENT AGENDA: . Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Chairman, a Commissioner, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the Rules of Order. . Any item on the Consent Agenda that contains written recommendations from the City of Eagle shall be adopted as part of the Planning & Zoning Commission's Consent Agenda approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise. A. Minutes of March 6, 2006. Lien moves to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Jacobs. ALL AYE... MOTION CARRIES. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. A-IS-OS & RZ-22-0S - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-E - Cindy Shane: Cindy Shane, represented by Sabrina Whitehead with Briggs Engineering, Inc., is requesting annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R-E (Residential Estates). The 18.98-acre site is located on the south side of West Beacon Light Road approximately ~-mile east of Ballantyne Lane and 1101 West Beacon Light Road. StafJis requesting this item be continued to the April 17, 2006 meeting. B. PP-lS-0S - Lil!:hthouse Subdivision - Cindv Shane: Cindy Shane, represented by Sabrina Whitehead with Briggs Engineering, Inc., is requesting preliminary plat approval for Lighthouse Subdivision. The l8.93-acre, 11 lot (9 buildable, 2 common) subdivision is located on the south side of West Beacon Light Road approximately Y2- mile east of Ballantyne Lane at 1101 West Beacon Light Road. StafJis requesting this item be continued to the April 17, 2006 meeting. Lien moves to continue Lighthouse Subdivision to the April 17, 2006 meeting. Seconded by Jacobs. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. C. A-9-0S/RZ-13-0S/CU-12-0S/PPUD-13-0S/PP-OI-06 - Lel!:acy Preliminary Development Plan & Development Al!:reement - Eal!:le Sil!:nature Sports Development. LLC: Eagle Signature Sports Development, LLC, represented by Todd Santiago, is requesting annexation of 1 59.09-acres, a rezone of +/-719-acres from A (Agricultural) and RR (Rural Residential-Ada County Designation) to R-2- DA-P (Residential two units per acre maximum with a development agreement- PUD), and conditional use, planned unit development preliminary development plan and preliminary plat (phase one only) approvals for the Legacy Planned Community. Page lof3 K:\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-04-03-06min2.doc The entire development consists of 719-acres (maximum of 1,653-residientiallots with a maximum of 38-acres of commercial and is located approximately 1,850-feet north of State Highway 44 between Linder Road and State Highway 16. The first phase of the preliminary plat is comprised of228.79 acres with 386 lots (344 residential, 41 common, and 1 academy lot). Pierce introduces the item. Todd Santiago gives an overview of the proposed academies and training programs. Presents the master plan and the preliminary plat to the Commission. Commission questions the applicant about open space and fees for the academies. Membership would be included with the purchase of the property but maintained monthly through HOA fees. Reviews handout provided by the applicant regarding points of discussion from the Staff Report. Commission questions the applicant regarding the gated areas proposed within the project. A short recess is called. Commissioner Pierce calls the meeting back to order. Nicheol Baird Spencer, City Staff, reviews the staff report and the discussion items provided by the applicant. Commission has questions regarding traffic and if there has been an impact study done. There is not a requirement for an impact study for a PUD. The City has not received comments from ACHD for the plat but the applicant will be required to follow what ACHD requires. Pierce opens the public hearing. Quinton Stapp, 5894 Hidden Springs Drive. A builder in the area. Believes the project is a great idea. Would purchase a home in this subdivision ifit were approved. Thinks there needs to be some smaller lots available for affordability. Also talks about some of the open space and parks that the applicant has proposed. Believes $200.00 a month is cheap for membership fees. Nancy Frost, 2205 E. Shalimar Drive, Eagle. Builder with Frost Homes who is building homes in Banbury Meadows. Talks about the open space proposed for this project. Believes it would work well for everyone. Talks about solutions for the drainage issues such as dryscapes rather than engineered pads. Believes the applicant has done a great job. Todd Santiago rebuts testimony. Commissioner Aspitarte arrives at 8: 1 0 p.m. Pierce closes the public hearing. A short recess is called. Commissioner Pierce calls the meeting back to order. Discussion amongst the Commission. Review of the handout of discussion items given to them by the applicant. Lien moves (with elaboration from Susan Buxton, City Attorney) to recommend approval of Legacy Preliminary Development Plan & Development Agreement - Eagle Signature Sports Development, LLC, consistent with comments made during Page 2 of3 K\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-04-03-06min2.doc deliberations and direct staff to bring back Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and a Development Agreement consistent with these comments. Seconded by Jacobs. Discussion amongst the Commission. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. REPORTS: a. Commission: b. City Attorney: c. Staff: 8. ADJOURNMENT: Lien moves to adjourn. Seconded by Jacobs. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. Hearing no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED: ""............. ...... OF EA .... ~ i\-{ ........0" ". I' "... ...<"'~ '. ( vl "VOR-1l'''' \ I ,0 ~ · . '" .. '* ~... : * E \-:"SEAL,~io i .... ..p-";C'o . 9.- ~ '10... r ".~POR""~.. <f , ..... <i l' ....... <"\ t- , "*#,## E OF \v.......... I',......t",' )~~ ~~~ - SHAON K. BERGMANN CITY CLERK/TREASURER A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. Page 3 of3 K\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-04-03-06min2.doc EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET A-9-05/RZ-13-05/CU-12-05/PPUD-13-05/PP-01-06 - Legacy Preliminary Development Plan & Development Agreement - Eagle Signature Sports Development, LLC April 3rd at 5:30 p.m. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE PRO? CON? 'ut2i f -2-1-7c N- lANewc3n7i1-t) ai3 8- 5Z5.--- i b al e 43 c -.7;a-r - PrP . 5 7 2 S -Y 9�`62, 71b 4f' /Al .e 2(�y�Um`1 uA AIii <1Gv, 4<i.:3 - J� V �= f >,‘ /7 S, LG A 7 5M / q �7 ✓ }lac v iC E Da lFs i'rd 9Y?- F50 - / kfOL )A-4i 61 .%50 z-ze . /v. ,r, (�5 0139 - q(2-- , 4L s1Ao,J5► QCt(..., \lock N. 9 /— 2 -4 i Staff Report — Discussion Items Page 30, Bullet # 5 (and item #24, P. 38 Site Conditions of Approval) — Density Bonus "Landscaping": Response: The Legacy development incorporates the concept of an "Activity Center" from the Soaring 2025 Western Area Plan. The intent is to create a vibrant heart to the community where children and families can develop and recreate. As a result, a large portion of the development's open space is found in this area. Community parks, pathways, and water features will be found throughout the remainder of the development; however it is by design that much of the development's open space is centralized and part of the Activity Center. As a result, there is a natural decrease in the amount of lots abutting open space. Obtaining 85% of the homes abutting open space AND achieving the intent of the Activity Center with world -class amenities and programs AND having 50% of the lots >17,000sf AND maintaining 25% open space in every phase of the development is simply not possible or reasonable. Proposal: • Contingent upon working out an agreeable amount of required open space, lot sizes, and % of lots abutting open space, Legacy is willing to forego the additional 5% density bonus that is available for large PUD's in spite of our belief that we meet and exceed the qualifications. This results in a decrease of 36 lots. • Legacy will ensure that a minimum of 50% of the homes abut open space. We feel it is more important that every home has usable and active open space within a very short walking distance rather than a higher number of homes abutting passive open space. • Additionally, 65% of townhouses and 50% of patio homes will abut open space. Page 31, Bullet # 5 (and item #23. P. 38 Site Specific Conditions of Approval) -- Density Calculation Response: Legacy's density calculation was calculated on a gross basis prior to subtracting the 10.2 acres of commercial area and also included a 15% density bonus. The correct base density should have been calculated as 708.8 acres X 2 units/acre for a total of 1,417 units. Proposal: • Pending agreement on the items mentioned in the paragraph above, Legacy's base density (with a 10% density bonus) would be 1,559 units. This would require a reduction of 22 units from the master plan (1,581-1559 = 22 units) and result in the elimination of the 72 lots previously planned for expansion parcels of the PUD. The net decrease in the number of lots according the staffs calculations would be 94. Page 32, Bullet # 2 — Expansion of the PUD Response: Assuming there are units of density (of the 1559) that are unused in the existing PUD, Legacy feels it is in the best interest of the city of Eagle to allow for PUD expansion. This will provide incentive for neighboring parcels to become part of the Legacy community and ensure compatibility of design and quality throughout the area. Based on the current submittal and the updated density calculation, an excess "unit bank" does not exist. Pending market conditions, excess units may become available as future parcels of Legacy are platted (ie, if fewer units are designed that what is in the current preliminary development plan). Should units become available and parcels are added to the PUD, we request that density be calculated as a whole as is consistent with density calculations in other PUD's in Eagle. Proposal: • Legacy will limit the potential expansion area to the "pig farm" at the corner of HWY 16 and Floating Feather Road. This is land that we have under contract. Limiting the expansion area to this parcel should eliminate the uncertainty of what the PUD expansion area is. • The current timeframe for buildout of Legacy is 5-7 years. An application for this expansion parcel must be submitted to the city of Eagle the sooner of 3 years from the time of the Legacy PUD approval, or prior to Legacy's submittal of a plat of the area West of Palmer Lane. This will ensure that the maximum density of the expanded Legacy PUD does not exceed 1559 units (2.2 units / acre). • This Expansion parcel will maintain a minimum of 10% open space and will not exceed 3 units/acre. • These same criteria (10% and 3 units/acre) will be applied to partner parcels. Page 32, Last Bullet (and item 25, P. 38 Site Specific Conditions of Approval) — Lot Sizes Response:_ Legacy is striving for a broad spectrum of housing types as is consistent with Eagle's Comprehensive Plan. 32% of our Phase I lots are >12,000sf, with 24 of these lots being >17,000sf. Having over 50% of the lots as 1 acre in size will result in an extremely exclusive neighborhood based not only on the Academy membership program but on price. Based on the rapid increase in property values in Eagle and to a lesser extent in surrounding communities, homes built on 1/2 acre lots will carry a value upwards of $750,000- $1,000,000. • While our intent is to rely heavily on local builders, many have expressed their concern and inability to take down many 1/2 acre lots at current market prices. • From 2003-2005, only 782 homes over $500k were sold in all of Ada County. With 340 of these homes currently on the market in Ada County (almost half of which are in Eagle), this represents a supply of almost 9 months and an average Days on the Market of almost 5 months. • Legacy is targeting single professionals, young couples, empty nesters AND families. A healthy mix of townhouses, patio homes, medium and larger lots to allow various price entry points. Proposal: • Legacy will increase the range of the number of Estate Homes in the development from 12-20% to 16- 25%. This would result in a minimum of 250 and up to 391 estate lots (1,559 X 16% or 25%). Of these homes, Legacy will have a minimum of 180 lots > 17,000sf. Assuming the middle range of 21%, this would result in 327 Estate Homes, of which 180 or 55% would be >17,000sf. • Legacy will double the number of lots >17,000sf in its first phase from 24 to 50. The % of Estate Lots (lots >12,000sf) in the first phase preliminary plat would remain at approximately 32%. In order to increase the number of lots >17,000 from 24 to 50, an elimination of +or- 5 lots will occur. Page 33, Bullet #1 — Longhorn Estates Transition Proposal: • Along Longhorn Estates, Legacy will maintain a minimum lot size of 25,500 sf. (3/4 acre). This will help ensure a nice transition from the existing development. • Legacy will construct a landscaped jogging path between the two properties to add additional buffering. • If the Longhorn Estates subdivision should ever be subdivided in the future, we request a condition of -/4 acre lot minimums be placed on the plat. Page 33, Bullet #2 — Setbacks Response: Legacy is requesting modified setbacks by product type. In addition to requesting setbacks for townhouses and patio lots consistent with what other developments have received, we are requesting slightly reduced setbacks for larger lots as well. Legacy agrees with the setbacks proposed by Staff. Proposal: See Staffs table on P. 38, Item 21 of Site Specific Conditions of Approval Setback Parameters Lot Type Approximate Lot Size Min. Street Frontage Front Rear Interior Side Street Side Townhouses (max of 6 connected) 3,800-4,999 SF (32x120) 30 ft 8 ft for living space; 20 ft from garage 10 ft 0 ft 10 ft Detached Units Patio Homes 5,000-8,000 SF Patio Style 30 ft 15 ft from living space; 20 ft from garage 10 ft 5ft 20 ft Mid Tier 8,000-12,000 SF 30 ft 20 ft 25 ft 5ft + 5ft* 20 ft Estate Homes I 12,000-16,999 SF 30 ft 25 ft 25 ft 7.5 ft + 5 ft 20 ft Estate Homes II 17,000 sf + 35 ft 30 ft 30 ft 10 ft 20 ft *5 ft per story for multi -story product P. 34, 1st and 2°d Paragraphs — Townhouse and Patio lots Response: When appropriate, Legacy agrees that alley -loaded rear garages for townhouse lots limit the amount of garage -dominated streetscape. However, depending on the design, townhouses can be very nicely designed without the need for alley -loaded garages (see exhibit). For Patio Homes, the footprint approved by builders of these homes is 50 X 100, 55 X 100, and 55 X 110. Attractive 1 and 2 story homes can be built on these footprints. A nice mix of 1 and 2 story patio homes creates an attractive streetscape. Proposal: • For corner patio lots (an any type of street), a 1-story building height (which allows a bonus room) will be required. • On all other lots >5,000 sf, 2-story homes will be acceptable. Shared driveways will be incorporated when appropriate to add variety and appearance to patio housing pods. • Regarding the request for 15 ft between building groups, we propose the following which is consistent with the setbacks requested for these lots: o 10 ft. between building groups when both sides are single level o 15 ft between building groups when one side is 2 story o 20 ft between building groups when both sides are 2 story P. 34, Bullet #1 — "Building Height Exception" Response: The primary reasoning behind the original submittal of 55 ft. is the indoor tennis facility. Greg Patton, our Director of Instruction, is requesting a minimum clearance of 45 ft. While the current BSU bubble contains less than that, Mr. Patton's feeling is that it is inadequate and that a 45-50 ft clearance is preferable if attempting to build a first-class facility. Proposal: Legacy has continued pursuing alternatives and has developed a new design measuring 42 ft 6 inches (see exhibit). This has been achieved by adding a significant amount of dirt to the building site and then constructing a portion of the building below grade. If this building height is not acceptable, we will proceed with a design of an all outdoor tennis facility. P. 34, Bullet #2 — "Leasable Office Space" Response: The office space in the Academy building will be used for the operations of academies and the headquarters of the academies themselves. P. 34, Bullet #4 and 5 — "75 ft Width Requirement and 35 ft Minimum Frontage" Response: Yes, Legacy is requesting a reduction in the minimum width requirement to accommodate the variety of lot sizes in the PUD. There will also be a very small number of lots that do not meet the 35 ft minimum frontage requirement. Proposal: • Legacy proposes the following lot width reductions: o Townhouse lots: 32 ft o Patio (5,000-7,999 sf): 50 ft o Mid -Tier (8,000-11,999 sf): 55 ft o Estate (12,000+ sf): 75 ft for standard lots, 65 for radius and cul-de-sac lots • Minimum Frontage: o 35ft standard; Flag and cul-de-sac lots: 20 ft. P. 35, Bullet # 3 — "Private Gated Streets" Response: Legacy is requesting 18% of the streets in the project to be private and gated. This figure was reached by including all of the housing pods surrounding the core academy area. The Academy will be for members only and access needs to be limited. Additionally, private and gated areas ensure additional security and privacy for Academy athletes and guests. P. 35, Bullet #4 — "Open Space" Response: Legacy's application proposes 17.8% open space. While comparisons are being made to Brookwood at 18%, Lexington Hills at 21%, and 2 Rivers at 25%, it is important to consider not only the quantity but the type of open space in Legacy. Much of Legacy's open space is intentionally at the core of the development. Our intent is to have active, usable, engaging open space that will create a community and neighborhood experience that surpasses anything in the valley —and country. The remainder of the development will have strategically located parks and walking paths. The expense of the Legacy open space is significantly more than traditional open space (ponds, paths, etc.). Requesting 25% open space in every phase of the development is simply not possible or reasonable. Doing so would result in 40% of the developers land as Open Space and 33% of the entire development. In order for this request to be an apples to apples comparison, it would be the same as asking 2 Rivers to keep their 25% open space, but add an additional 70 acres at the core of their development and build a $15-20M dollar facility. Proposal: • Legacy will increase Open Space to 21% of the development, or 151 acres. This open space will be calculated as a whole for the entire PUD. Each subsequent phase will be considered in light of this Open Space amount. The intent is that all units have usable, active open space within a short walking distance. This increases the remaining open space to 37.5 acres for the remaining 491 acres (or approximately 8%). • Similar to other developments, a large portion of the school site should also be considered open space due to the parks, grass, and open nature of elementary sites. Legacy will work with the Meridian School District to discuss ways to collaborate on playground equipment and other measures that would allow this site to be classified as open space. The addition of this acreage brings the Open Space calculation to over 9% for the remainder of the project. P. 36, Item #7 — Common Area Ownership Response: Legacy will submit final wording to be agreed upon by the city Attorney. P. 36, Item # 12 — Drainage and Utility Easements Response: Clarification needed. 5 ft side setbacks and 10 ft rear lot setbacks are being requested for townhouse and patio lots (consistent with other approved subdivisions). Legacy requests 5 and 10 foot drainage and utility easements to in lieu of the 6 and 12 foot requests. P. 39, Item #27 — ITD Dedication on Hwy 16 Response: We will comply with ITD requirements. P. 39, Item # 35 — Fencing Proposal: We would like a fence height exception of five feet vs. the 4 ft standard. With open fencing this is a more attractive and functional fence (to better contain dogs).