Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from PLanning Project: Casa Meridiana RECEIVED j\PR 1 1 20011 City ofMeriman City CIe1t Office Location: SE corner of Locust Grove and Victory Applications: annexation and zoning and conditional use approval Gross Residential Density: 4.6 Highlights of Proposed Development: 31 multifamily units and one clubhouse/activity center on one parcel which requires a conditional use permit in an R-15 district. ANNA - point out pairs and 3- attached units. Other: Although the density is only 4.6 units per acre, the applicant is requesting the R-15 district because it allows multi-family developments whereas they are prohibited in the R-8 district. The applicant requests multifamily approval at this time and then intends to submit a condominium plat in the future to make each ofthese units available for individual sale. Elevations: Yes Commission Recommendation: approval at the March 16, 2006 public hearing. Summary of Public Hearing: i.m favor: Russ Phillips (applicant's representative) ii.In opposition: None. iii.Commenting: Eric Oaas, Applicant Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Gates - which are not allowed by the UDC ii. High groundwater (4") iii. Cut through traffic iv. Private streets for what is essentially single family residences. v. Interconnectivity of the private road system vi. Redesign of the development to provide internal access from adjacent parcels instead of VictorylLocust Grove Roads vii. Access to major road systems or local road access only. viii. Emergency service drives instead of stub streets Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: To make the north/south leg of the private streets including the stub street to the south to be dedicated public streets. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council as presented in the staff report: i. Site design considerations a. The applicant shall provide a 20x20 parking pad for all units b. The fencing plan shall show all common space separated from Victory Road and Locust Grove Road by a minimum of a four foot barrier 11. Public versus Private Streets a. Planning Commission is recommending that the north/south street be a public street with two connecting private cul-de~sac streets. b. The applicant will need to submit a preliminary plat. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council as raised by Planning Director (and Fire Marshall): I have openly communicated these concerns to the applicants a. Not in the staff report b. They are in a separate memo and have been discussed at meetings Public versus Private Streets (Fire Marshall and I completely agree) a. UDC allowed private streets in MF developments for the sole purpose of facilitating addressing of the property. i. Parking lots with drive aisles ii. Fire Department needed addresses to quickly respond- iii. For example, it is very difficult for emergency responders to quickly identify an apartment unit that may have a Franklin address, but is actually tucked at the back of a complex that may have a hundred units. iv. Now feel we have opened up a can of worms. v. The Fire Marshall and I are very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding the use of private streets for (essentially) single family homes. b. Previous private streets standards (in MCC) were comparable to ACHD standards for reduced ROW street section so that you did not have developers choosing private streets in order to avoid the higher construction and development standards. i. Almost all developers opted to use public streets. ii. The Casa Meridian design has a 24 foot back-of-curb to back-of-curb with sidewalk on one side for a portion of the project. iii. The Fire Marshall and I are very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding the use of private streets in order to have reduced construction and development standards. Interconnected street system a. Corner location b. Very important to have interconnected streets that do not support cut-thhrough traffic c. Sageland just to the north. d. Area positioned between two major irrigation features and just west of a proposed NC on the DeChambeau property. e. East/west as well as north south connections are appropriate and necessary. f. Property to the south has met with us twice about development of site Gates a. The applicant's original solution for the cuHhrough traffic-gates. b. The gates do not seem to serve other security or amenity functions. c. Have not proposed perimeter fencing d. There is not a golf course/other amenity that benefits from restricted access e. Not proposed their own security personnel. (PD will not patrol on private, gated streets. They will respond to emergency.) f. Gates not allowed by UDC. They have talked to us about submitting a text amendment, but have not yet submitted. g. mterconnected street systems are given the highest importance in the CPo h. Gates not consistent with the CP i. I am very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding gated streets within the City of Meridian. Condominium plat. a. Requesting R-15 zoning so that they can ask for multi-family b. Following up with condominium plat. C. You will not see condo plat-administrative approval. A condominium plat application for property in any district may be processed as a short plat where no new development is proposed. d. Another can of Worms. mtent was to facilitate condominimizing commercial projects, which we had seen an increase in lately. If the commercial structure and/or use were approved, no need for Commission and Council to review the condo plat. e. Residential is different. Our development standards are differentiated by single family detached, single family attached, townhouses, and finally multi-family. The condo plat sidesteps the more rigourous frontage, lot size, platting, parking, garage and setback requirements associated with single family ownership properties. f. We just re-did our ordinances with the input and direction of the development community to address all these standards. We got rid of the Planned Development provisions so that we would have consistent development standards. g. Condo plats have the potential to lead to very inconsistent development standards. h. I am very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding residential development standards. Findings: Yes-for approval. Although the staff report recommends that you have the applicant submit a site plan that depicts the public streets and the other site design considerations pointed out in the staff report. Notes: