Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplicant Response to Staff ReportJanuary 16, 2003 11),RCEIVED JLW To: Planning & Zoning Commission .BAN 16 2003 Cc: Meridian Planning & Zoning Cam' OF MERIDIAN Meridian Public Works Meridian City Attorney From: Jon Wardle Re: Locust Grove Place — Planned Development (AZ-02-027) / (PP-02-026) / (CUP-02-041) The following is a response to the Staff Report dated January 16, 2003. For ease of reference, please note the following: • "No Comment" signifies agreement with the Staff Report. • "Clarification" addresses a staff question or provides additional information to further explain a concept or project intent. • "Disagree" states our position in objection to the Staff Report. • "Requested Action" states how the issue should be resolved or conditioned. I. Annexation & Zoning (File No AZ-02-027) Staff Analysis, Pages 3 — 6 A. No Comment B. No Comment C. No Comment D. No Comment E. No Comment. F. No Comment G. No Comment. ACHD approved the project on December 11, 2002. H. No Comment. I. No Comment J. No Comment K. No Comment L. No Comment Annexation & Zoning Comments, Page 6 1. No Comment 2. Clarification. When originally approved the project was conceived with 2.927 acres as a "C-G" zone. A compromise was made at the City Council to zone the property as "C-C" I �.• Locust Grove Place — Applicant Response January 16, 2003, Page 2 because it was a more restrictive zone on the allowed uses. The zoning is consistent with the original approval but decreases the size to 0.74 acres. Requested Action. Delete Annexation and Zoning Comments No. 2 based on prior action and zoning of this property to C-C. 3. No Comment II. Preliminary Plat (File No PP 02 026) Findings & Requirements, Pages 6 - 7 a. No Comment b. No Comment c. No Comment d. No Comment e. No Comment Additional Considerations, Page 7 1. Clarification. The staff report correctly states that "the applicant was granted permission to connect N. Scrivner Avenue to Locust Grove Place Subdivision through a pedestrian pathway." The pedestrian pathway issue was also discussed with ACHD staff. The ACHD Commission approved the micropath, and did not require a roadway connection. Because the roads in Locust Grove Place are private, connecting North Scrivner would creates a "public to private to public" situation. A pathway connection is the best solution. Site Specific Comments (Preliminary Plat), Pages 8 11 1. Disagree. We do not agree with staff s recommendation for Scrivner Avenue in Danbury Fair to connect to Drucker Street in Locust Grove Place. The streets internal to Locust Grove Place are private streets. Danbury Fair has public streets. ACHD's adopted staff report states the following: "... Although staff does believe that vehicular intra-neighborhood connectivity is important, in this case it may not be feasible. Because the applicant is proposing private streets for the lots within the proposed subdivision, extending Scrivner Avenue as a public street to connect to the streets in Locust Grove Place is not a viable option. This connection would connect two public streets (Locust Grove Place and Scrivner Avenue) via a private street (Drucker Street). This is not the - ideal situation since the general public does not have an easement for ingress egress across Drucker Street as it is not proposed to be set apart for public use, only private use. Because the applicant is providing pedestrian access to Scrivner Street from the site and because Drucker Street is a proposed private street, staff recommends that the Commission grant the applicant a waiver of District policy for the requirement to extend Scrivner Street into the site. Locust Grove Place — Applicant Response January 16, 2003, Page 3 U We concur with ACHD's recommendation, and feel that neighborhood interconnectivity is accomplished by way of the pedestrian pathway. Vehicular connectivity is neither enhanced nor diminished by eliminating the requirement for extension. Requested Action. Delete Site Specific Comment No. 1. 2. Disagree. Staff bases its decision from the old Planned Development Ordinance. The section sited (12-6-8-B (1)) is not apart of the PD Ordinance adopted in 2001. Also, Locust Grove Place encompasses both residential and commercial uses; it creates a single, cohesive project. Setbacks and landscape buffers were considered in the design. A 15-foot setback is appropriate for the use and location. Requested Action. Delete Site Specific Comment No. 2 3. (Not Used by Stafj) 4. No Comment. Will be revised for the City Council hearing. 5. No Comment. 6. Disagree. We do not agree with Staff s assessment that Lot 41 be reconfigured to meet the side setback requirement for the R-40 zone. In the R-40 zone the minimum interior sideyard setback is zero (0'). The lot as depicted complies. In the application, we requested that this homesite be treated as a zero -lot line. The lot will have a detached unit. Lot 40, immediately to the west, is a common lot with 30 feet of width, that contains the micropath between Locust Grove Place and Danbury Fair. Requested Action: Delete Site Specific Comment No. 6. 7. No Comment 8.1 No Comment. Will be corrected prior to City Council 8.2 No Comment 8.3 No Comment 8.4 No Comment 8.5 No Comment (The Numbering of the Conditions changes back to No. 5 at this point in the Report) 5. Disagree. We do not agree with the requirement for a micropath from Locust Grove Place to the new 10-foot pathway along the Flume Canal connecting Stonehenge Way to Locust Grove Road between Lots 6 & 7. Connecting a regional pathway to a neighborhood, between two residences, causes concern from a safety and security issue, as well as maintenance. We have proposed that the only direct connection from Locust Grove Place occur along Locust Grove Road, where the 10-foot pathway will intersect with the sidewalk adjacent to Locust Grove Road. Requested Action. Delete Site Specific Comment No. 5. Locust Grove Place — Applicant Response January 16, 2003, Page 4 6. No Comment 7. No Comment. Will be revised prior to City Council. 8. No Comment 9. No Comment 10. No Comment 11. Clarification. There is some discrepancy between City requirements and those of DEQ Requested Action. Modify Site Specific Comment No. 11 to read as follows: "Any drainage areas (detention/retention basins) must be designed to ensure that water is retained only during] 00 year storm events, and for a period of time not to exceed 24 hours, in accordance with the requirements of the City of Meridian and DEQ. Side slopes within drainage areas shall not exceed 3:1. " General Comments (Preliminary Plat), Page 8 1. No Comment 2. No Comment 3. No Comment 4. No Comment 5. No Comment 6. No Comment 7. No Comment Clarification. We concur with the requirement for tiling of the Flume Canal, but request that the City not require that the Jackson Drain be tiled. The Jackson Drain is a watercourse that has water year round, and does provide an attractive natural feature. The City previously adopted language addressing the tiling of the canals and the pathway system. Requested Action. We request that the City create a new Site Specific Comment, and include the previously approved language as follows: "The City Council require approval of the proposed design tiling the Settler's Canal (also known as the Flume Canal), and leavink the Jackson drain untiled with a pathway along the north side of the property that must match the pathway constructed in the Penn Station project The proposed path shall be concrete or asphalt to match the rest of the pathway. The property owner to the east ofLocust Grove shall work to continue the path extension when the property is developed The City further requires that the pathway be paved after it is deeded to the city, and that the citE accept the pathway and maintain it before construction of the pathway by the developer. " 9. No Comment 10. No Comment 11. No Comment 12. No Comment 13. No Comment 14. No Comment v Locust Grove Place — Applicant Response v January 16, 2003, Page 5 III. Conditional Use Permit for a PD (File No CUP 02-041) Standards for Conditional Uses A. No Comment B. No Comment C. No Comment D. No Comment E. No Comment F. No Comment G. No Comment H. No Comment I. No Comment Site Specific Comments (Conditional Use Permit) 1. No Comment 2. No Comment Recommendation We respectfully request approval of Locust Grove Place, Planned Development, including annexation / zoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit, as detailed in the applications and with the modifications we have proposed.