HomeMy WebLinkAboutMain Street entryway corridor-A-2016-0237 Mayor Tammy de Weerd
ACity Council Members:
....00oor
A/(‘El:kl..1
ssloit%mu
Palmer Anne Little Roberts
August 2, 2016
Elizabeth Hunt
Maverik Inc.
185 S. State Street, Suite 800
Salt Lake City,UT 84111
RE: Alternative compliance application for a reduced street landscape buffer along Main Street
(entryway corridor)—(A-2016-0237)
Dear Ms. Hunt:
This letter is in response to your application for Alternative Compliance to reduce the required street
landscape buffer along Main Street.The City's Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development
Code(UDC)designate this section of Main Street as an entryway corridor.An entryway corridor
(UDC 11-1A-1) is defined as an"arterial roadway that introduce(s)both visitors and residents to the
City of Meridian, as defined by the city's comprehensive plan."UDC Table 11-2B-3 requires a 35-
foot wide street landscape buffer along all entryway corridors.
UDC 11-5B-5, allows the City to provide for alternative means to certain standard development
regulations, including landscaping requirements.The subject request to reduce the Main Street buffer
by fifteen feet along the entire eastern property line would not be consistent with the buffer
requirement as described above.After reviewing your request to reduce the landscape buffer, and
section 11-5B-5B2,your request for alternative compliance is not allowed for the following reasons:
a. Topography, soil,vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full compliance is
impossible or impractical;
There are no topography, soil, vegetation, or other site conditions that would prohibit
full compliance for the full width of the street buffer;
b. The site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot;
The site does not involve space limitations or an unusually shaped lot.
c. Safety considerations make alternative compliance desirable;
There are no safety issues on the site that make the alternative compliance request
desirable.
d. Other regulatory agencies or departments having jurisdiction are requiring design
standards that conflict with the requirements of this article;(Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005,
eff.9-15-2005)
No other regulatory agencies have indicated any conflicting design standards with the
City's requirements.
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; (Ord. 09-1394,3-3-2009, eff. retroactive to 2-4-2009)
The proposed design does not include 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.
No additional environmental quality improvements would result from the alternative
compliance.
The Director hereby denies your request for alternative compliance to Unified Development Code
(UDC)table 11-2B-3 for street landscape buffer standards for the subject property based on the
required Findings listed in UDC 11-5B-5E, as follows:
1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or
The site currently has several existing structures that are proposed to be removed as
part of the project thus;strict adherence is possible but not desired by the applicant.
The applicant has submitted plans that show the fuel canopy,fuel islands and
parking as the predominant design feature of the site which is not consistent with the
ASM, Comprehensive Plan or the definition of an entryway corridor as defined in
the UDC.
2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the
requirements; and
The Director finds the applicant's proposal to construct a 20 foot wide landscape
buffer is not an equal or superior means of compliance; the reduced landscape
buffer only depicts the required trees and lawn. Further, the reduced buffer/design
does not incorporate the following:
1)A mix of plant materials as required per UDC 11-3B-7C;
2)Provide an attractive streetscape with pedestrian supportive use areas in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan,ASM and the UDC.
3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties.
The alternative means would not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the
intended uses however, the Director finds the reduced buffer does not provide an
attractive streetscape into Downtown, lacks pedestrian scale as envisioned by the
ASM and allows the parking and the fuel areas to be the predominant design feature
impacting the character of surrounding properties.
Further,the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)establishes the minimum
standards that apply to development. Because landscape design can contribute to the overall design
of the site,the following ASM standards reinforce this decision for denial:
• Intent 1.00 Promote visually aesthetic building designs that incorporate quality architectural
characteristics and establish built environments that are compatible with existing,planned,
and anticipated adjacent land uses.
The proposed site design does not take into account the existing land uses surrounding the
proposed development. There is an existing city park directly across Main Street, and a
recently constructed Tates Rents to the south, and the City anticipates the properties to the
north to redevelop in the near future. The preface behind the reduced buffer width was to
establish appropriate streetscape elements that would contribute to the existing built
environment.
• Goal 1.10 Articulate building designs to frame and accentuate public spaces with pedestrian
scale elements and details.
The proposed building does not achieve this goal because the gas canopy is located nearest
the intersection of Franklin and Main instead of the building. The building does not take into
account nearby Storey Park or offer any pedestrian scale elements other than outdoor
seating on the east side of the building located between the parking area and the proposed
20 foot wide landscape buffer(approximately 70 feet from the nearest edge of the buffer).
• Goal 1.11 Building design should address building scale,mass, form,and use a variety of
materials and architectural features to ensure an aesthetic contribution compatible with
surrounding buildings.
• 1.1D Buildings must orient,frame, and/or direct pedestrian views to adjacent cultural
buildings,parks,and plazas.
• 1.1E Design and orient buildings not to impede access. The building should enhance the
appeal of open space and pedestrian environments.
• 2.4A For buildings fronting roadways, off-street parking must be located to the side of or
behind buildings; off-street parking is not allowed between the roadway and building.
• 2.4B Limiting building separation from the roadway to streetscape and pedestrian
supportive use areas, such as location for street furnishings, outdoor dining, small plaza,
public spaces or storefronts.
The proposed site design with the reduced buffer width does not orient,frame or direct
pedestrian views towards Storey Park,prohibits outdoor seating from being integrated
into the streetscape and allows the parking and the fuel areas to be the predominant
design feature of the site.
In accordance with UDC 11-5A-3F and UDC 11-5A-6,you have the option to appeal this decision to
deny your application to the City Council. All City Council Reviews (appeals) shall be filed in
writing with the Planning Department within fifteen(15) days after the date of this letter. The appeal
will be forwarded to the City Council to conduct a public hearing. The appeal should specify the
grounds upon which the appeal is filed. I have attached the City Council Review application and
checklist to this letter, should you decide to file an appeal of the Director's decision.
Please feel free to contact Josh Beach at 884-5533 with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
i
Caleb I .od,A CP
Planning Division Manager
CH:jb