Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ - Applicant Response to Staff Report - 4/20 a 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201, Boise, ID 83709-0944 p 208-376-7330 f 208-323-9336 w www.jub.com April 19, 2016 Sonya Watters City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: HOWRY LANE SUBDIVISION – AZ, PP (H-2016-0030) STAFF REPORT RESPONSE Dear Ms. Watters, On behalf of M3 Companies, please accept this response to the staff report received April 18, 2016 regarding the Annexation and Preliminary Plat application for the Howry Lane Subdivision. For the most part, we are agreeable to staff’s analysis and conditions of approval. There’s a few things we would like to clarify and request further discussion. Zoning Request / Comprehensive Plan Compatibility As indicated in the staff report, we are requesting a “step up” in density from low to medium without requirement of an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as allowed in the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 21). Page 21 of the Comprehensive Plan states: Within residential areas the following policies shall apply: …In residential areas, other residential densities will be considered without requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, the density can only be changed one “step” (i.e., from low to medium, not low to high, etc.). This provision does not apply to 1) the area bounded by Can-Ada, Chinden, McDermott, and Ustick Roads or 2) within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. As indicated in the text above, a provision in the Comprehensive Plan allows for a zoning request with an increased density by “one step”, which is what we are requesting. The proposed gross density is only 3.36 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre), slightly above 3.0 d.u./acre (Low Density) shown on the FLUM. We agree with staff’s view that a higher density would be more compatible with the FLUM amendment in 2015 which changed much of the surrounding area to R-8 and Mixed Use to accommodate many proposed land use changes occurring in the area (i.e. schools, YMCA, City Park, health complex, etc.). Regarding our request for the R-8 zoning designation (instead of R-4), this is primarily due to the need for the R-8 dimensional standards including lot size and width. The minimum lot size in the R-8 district is 5,000 square-feet, and the minimum lot size in the R-4 district is 8,000 square www.jub.com J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. feet. We are proposing a mix of lot sizes (6,000 to 14,076 square-feet), with an average lot size of 7,978 square-feet, representing only a 22 square-foot difference. However, the R-8 lot frontage dimensional standard is needed to support the layout and design, which is significantly constrained by the Cunningham Lateral and Drain that traverses the property (see graphic below). Conditions of Approval In general, we are agreeable to the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. Below is a list of conditions in need of clarification and/or amendment. • 1.1.2.b – Block length. We have adjusted the site layout to include an intersection with a 90- degree angle at Aukland Street and Hillsdale Park Drive to reduce the block length below the maximum 1,200’, with the western section (S. Hillsdale Park Drive) measuring at 723.4’, and the eastern section (W. Aukland Street) measuring at 703.3’. See Block Length Exhibit. Staff has indicated that they would like to see additional modification to address the north side of the block that backs up to the hillside. After looking at several different options to accommodate the design change, we believe we can accept the condition, but would like the condition to be amended to require the changes before the City Council Hearing. The re-design will include changes to the open space design and park area at the entrance and we will need the additional time to make those modifications and re-calculate acreages and www.jub.com J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. lot counts. There are also slope considerations that will need to be analyzed and lot counts will need to be updated. • 1.1.2.g – Howry dedication. We want to make sure we fully understand this condition. We agree to dedicate the 20’ strip to ACHD and will agree whether it is used for right-of-way or buffer area for that right-of-way. We will only be responsible for dedication of the property to ACHD and no improvements or provision of additional right-of-way would be required on Howry Lane. If this is the intent of the condition, then no changes are requested. • 1.1.3.b – Drain/water amenity. We are proposing to pipe the Cunningham Lateral; however, as allowed by UDC 11-1-A-1, we are not proposing to pipe the drain. It is open to the east, and as shown on the landscape plan, we are proposing to leave it open and enhance the area with landscaping. Please verify that the proposed plan meets the intent of this condition. • 1.1.3.C – Detailed Calculations of Qualified Open Space. Proposed open space features far exceed minimum requirements. We will provide an updated Landscape Plan showing these calculations prior to City Council to reflect the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation. • 1.1.3.d – Bollard lighting requirement along path. Because the path is at the top of a visible slope and behind houses that will be at the top of that slope, we would prefer to not install the lights because the bollards would be distracting at night behind the houses that have view fences at the top of the hill. Since the hillside will be visible from a distance, the bollard lights would also be visible right on the top of the hillside and we would prefer to avoid that. In accordance with the provision in UDC 11-3A-8H that allows the Director to waive this requirement, we are requesting a waiver at this time. • 1.1.3.f – Revise lot configurations. We can revise the configurations of Lots 17 and 27, Block 6 to match the updated preliminary plat layout prior to City Council, depending on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. We will provide an updated Landscape Plan showing this change prior to City Council, if applicable. • 1.1.3.g – Pathways between lots. The staff report calls for a pathway between Lots 23 and 24 and 7 and 8, Block 3. We are agreeable to adding a 5’ pathway between Lots 7 and 8, but Lots 23 and 24 are at the bottom of the slope and the path would not be able to connect up the hill. As such, we are requesting an amendment to only require the addition of a 5’ pathway between Lots 7 and 8, Block 3. Please contact me at 208-489-7894 if you have any questions. www.jub.com J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. Sincerely, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. Lisa Bachman, AICP, PCED Project Planner Cc: Scott Wonders, P.E., J-U-B Engineers Mark Tate, General Manager, M3 Development Attachment • Block Length Exhibit • Updated Preliminary Plat