The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPZ - Applicant's Response to Staff Report 11-17 GIVENS PURSLEYLLP Attorneys and Counselors at Law 601 W.Bannock Street Gary G.Allen Don Z.Gray Deborah E.Nelson PO Box 2720 Charlie S.Baser Paul G.Hawkins Samuel F.Parry Boise,ID 83701 Christopher J.Beeson Brian J.Holleran Randall A.Peterman Telephone:208-388-1200 Jason J.Blakley Kersti H.Kennedy Blake W.Ringer Facsimile:208-388-1300 Clint R.Bolinder Elizabeth A.Koeckeritz Michael O.Roe Jeff W.Bower Neal A.Koskella Danielle M.Strollo www.givenspursley.com Preston N.Carter Michael P.Lawrence Robert B.White Chynna K.Castoro Franklin G.Lee Michael V.Woodhouse Jeremy C.Chou David R.Lombardi Michael C.Creamer Lars E.Lundberg Charlotte V.Cunnington Kimberly D.Maloney William C.Cole(Of Counsel) Joshua C.Dickinson Kenneth R.McClure Amber N.Dina Alex P.McLaughlin Bradley J.Dixon Melodie A.McQuade Kenneth L.Pursley(1940-2015) Thomas E.Dvorak Christopher H.Meyer James A.McClure(1924-2011) Rebecca M.Fitz L.Edward Miller Raymond D.Givens(1917-2008( Morgan D.Goodin Judson B.Montgomery November 17, 2022 Via email to sallen@meridiancity.org Meridian Planning Division c/o Sonya Allen 33 E Broadway Ave., Suite 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Applicant's Response to Staff Report for Sessions Parkway(H-2022-0046) Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Givens Pursley represents the applicant on the above commercial development project. Our development team has reviewed the Staff Report and thanks planning staff for their support of the Project and recommendation of approval. We agree with all but four of planning staff s recommended conditions related to site plan design. Property Background The application proposes a development agreement modification and a preliminary plat for five commercial lots comprising the Session Parkway Subdivision, accessible via State Highway 55. This a small 5.32-acre infill project, owned by the developer of the adjacent Village Apartments. The property is ideally situated for commercial use because it has frontage along one of the City's key commercial corridors, State Highway 55. Concept Plans The applicant has proposed two conceptual site plans — both concept plans depict a fuel sales facility and a drive-through establishment fronting Highway 55. The first site plan proposes three commercial pads on the eastern border of the property(Exhibit 1.0 in the Staff Report). The second site plan replaces the three commercial pads with a hotel use (Exhibit 2.0 in the Staff Report). Response to Proposed Site Plan Conditions Applicant has worked with planning staff over the past several months to revise the concept plans to accommodate planning staff requests. In addition to the revisions made to date, planning staff has proposed several additional conditions regarding site plan layout that cannot be accommodated by the project based on the site constraints and anticipated uses. The applicant seeks your approval of the project with the removal of 4 proposed conditions in Section VIII.A.La of the Staff Report for the following reasons: Proposed Condition 1. Depict non-retail commercial, office or civic uses for a minimum of 50% of the development area on Exhibit EX1.0,unless Commission or Council find this isn't applicable because this property is part of a larger MU-R designated area. This doesn't apply if the property develops with the hotel as proposed in exhibit EX2.0. Applicant Response. The Comprehensive Plan for the MU-R designation encourages a mix of uses for development within the MU-R designation. One of the MU-R goals is that "retail uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the mixed use development area." Given the size of the property, 5.32 acres, and due to the location of the property within a much greater MU-R designated area, the MU-R comprehensive plan considerations regarding a maximum for retail commercial should not apply to this small infill project. The overall MU-R area, which includes the area east of Highway 55 between Ustick Road and Fairview Avenue comprises approximately 150 acres. Within this area there is a robust mix of uses. Two multi family residential developments abut the Project on its east and south-east sides. The Project is bounded by retail and professional service uses on its north and south boundaries. To the west, across Highway 55, is undeveloped property and a detached single-family residential development. Kleiner Park, a regional city park, is 114 mile to the southeast. Given the mix of uses in the immediate vicinity, we request removal of any condition requiring a specific percentage of uses within the Project area. Proposed Condition. Specific details for the integrated plaza/open areas shall be provided with the first certificate of zoning compliance. The applicant can relocate open space/plaza areas depicted on the plan with director approval once specific tenants are known. Applicant Response. We request that the plaza area/open space remain where depicted on the concept site plans, clustered along the southern boundary of the property. For this property clustering along the southern boundary makes the most sense because it facilitates connection with the surrounding multi family residential located to the east and southeast and to Kleiner Park. See Figure I below. We have focused on pedestrian connectivity with these neighboring residential projects in designing the concept plans, and the plaza area and open space in this corridor enhances that connectivity and usability. Further, when looking at the surrounding residential development in the immediate MU-R area, the location of the proposed plaza area is centrally located for future users of the Sessions Parkway commercial area. Proposed Condition. On concept plan 1, labeled as EXI.0, some or all of the buildings along the eastern boundary should be rotated and/or relocated and a shared plaza area/green space added to a more central location within the development for better integration, including a central pathway connection to the open space and front pad sites. I I • I /I I' I / I/' 'I / I • I • I I I I • • I • I I I' I/ / I/I '/ I • / I I' I I / I I ' I / I / /I I I I • I I I • I I I E ft Jm Oft raw � I j 1111 Wr�.7' r!I.. ice, 1i� 911 r r 1 PON ram. -= --�+' �,� � � •�"�"a MCI t ZEN �1111111 Ir■IIY�1 ' �� , i � - ■ r 11 :-r :11 ,-7 Irr ill�11111111111■ 1�111 VW l • • f Proposed Condition. If the site develops consistent with concept plan 2, labeled as EX2.0, the applicant shall construct a 5-foot sidewalk on the east boundary and provide a decorative crosswalk across the drive aisle of the multi-family portion of the development (SWC of the Village Apartment)to enhance pedestrian connectivity. Applicant Response. We request that the sidewalk remain as depicted on the concept plan. This location provides good connectivity between the adjacent parcels to the north and south.As shown above in Figure 1, the adjacent multi family development to the east(also owned by the applicant) already provides significant connectivity to and through that multi family development, making a pathway along the eastern boundary redundant for the residents of the multi family development. A pathway located directly adjacent to the hotel is preferred for hotel guest's access to the multitude of shopping and recreation sites within the immediate vicinity. We agree to provide a decorative crosswalk in the southeast portion of the site as requested by staff. Idaho Transportation Department Conceptual Approval Attached is recent correspondence from the Idaho Transportation Department with our project traffic engineer at Kittelson and Associates reiterating ITD's support for the project's proposed Highway 55 access location. Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Staff comments. We look forward to your support and approval of the Sessions Parkway subdivision. Sincerely, $fl- Jeff Bower ITD Correspondence Sarah Arjona eSarah.Arjona@itd.idaho.gcv> Andy Daleiden;Stephanie Hopkins;Regan Hansen - 5/12/2022 RE:[EXTERNAL]Sessions Parkway&Village Apartments TIS V Andy, 0 I believe the previous email was further confirmation on the ITD's acceptance of the concept and proposed approach location.If you need a formal letter from ITD then I believe we can accommodate that however we cannot say the approach is approved or permitted since we have not reviewed civil drawings or approved a permit.Please let me know if the email was not sufficient for the City. Thank you, Sarah A) ona Development Services Coordinator ITD District 3 (208)334-8338