The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPZ - Applicant's Response to Staff Report 2-6 Charlene Way From:Linda Ritter Sent:Thursday, February 6, 2025 11:25 AM To:Clerks Comment Subject:FW: Newkirk 2 - Response to Staff Report Attachments:Response to Staff Report - PZ (Newkirk East).pdf Please add to Laserﬁche From: Hethe Clark <hclark@clarkwardle.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 4:55 PM To: Linda Ritter <lritter@meridiancity.org> Cc: Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Laren Bailey <laren@congergroup.com>; Jim Conger <jconger@congergroup.com> Subject: Newkirk 2 - Response to Staff Report External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Linda, please ﬁnd a?ached a response le?er regarding the staﬀ report. I think we’ve done all of the “homework” requested. I’ve included updates to the preliminary plat clarifying the conﬁgura?on of the 7 alley-loaded lots on Block 3. They are in the following loca?on: 1 We will reduce the block length on E. Wolfsburg Ave. to get below the 500’ threshold and will provide an updated plan prior to Council. With regard to S. Midford Way/Place, I believe we are in agreement that there is not a dead-end street issue. With regard to block length, the le?er describes the fact that there is signiﬁcant grade diﬀerence and ul?mately an 8’ to 10’ diﬀerence between street level (at the collector) and pad level. There’s not an opportunity to do a ped connec?on. This was discussed back with Phase 1 in connec?on with the possibility of a street connec?on in this area. Those connec?ons were all ul?mately removed due to the topography. If we can get on the same page with regard to the Midford Way condi?on, I think we are in full agreement. Please give me a call with any ques?ons a?er you’ve had a chance to review. Thanks! T. Hethe Clark, Partner 251 E Front Street, Suite 310 | PO Box 639 | Boise, Idaho 83701 hclark@clarkwardle.com | Direct 208.388.3327 | Fax 208.388.1001 DEVELOPMENT ATTORNEYS CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named as recipients. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or protected from disclosure under applicable law including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please notify the sender immediately by telephone. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this transmission, disclose its contents, or take any action in reliance on the information it contains. THIS E-MAIL IS NOT AN OFFER OR ACCEPTANCE: Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any other law of similar import, absent an express statement to the contrary contained in this e-mail, neither this e-mail nor any attachment are an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract, and are not intended to bind the sender or any other person or entity. 2 DEVELOPMENT CLARK T. Hethe Clark (208) 388-3327 hclark@clarkwardle.com Via electronic mail January 5, 2025 Linda Ritter, Associate Planner City of Meridian Community Development 33 E. Broadway Ave., #102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Response to Staff Report: Newkirk East MDA, PP, H-2024-0043 Dear Linda: We have had the opportunity to review the Staff Report in anticipation of hearing on February 6, 2025. As you know, the Staff Report included a "To-Do List" of items the Applicant was to provide prior to the City Council hearing. As shown below, we believe that each of these items have been addressed. Background This application follows an original approval that included two areas — a single-family residential area on the west ("Phase 1") and an apartment complex on the east ("Phase 2"). Phases 1 and 2 each received annexation, rezone, development agreement, and preliminary plat approvals. Since that time, the Applicant has determined that Phase 2 is not viable as an apartment site as (i) it is not large enough to accommodate sufficient lots to justify the required amenities and (ii) does not have the needed visibility. Accordingly, a new preliminary plat is being submitted that will allow for a combination of single-family attached and alley-loaded product in the areas that would have been apartments. This reduces the overall unit count and impacts of the project significantly while still maintaining the area's target densities of 12 DU/acre per the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. Response to To-Do List Staff and the Applicant are largely in agreement with regard to this application. A few items were identified in the Staff Report as requiring follow-up. They are addressed below. Alley Access: The first item noted in the Staff Report was to clarify alley access on Block 2, Lots 3-9 and show that these lots will not be double-fronted. As shown below (on the left), the required landscape buffer will be provided on the west side of Block 3 (N. Zimmerman Way) against the existing parkstrip, which is shown as a common lot (as depicted on the right). Access to these lots will only be on the east side along N.Ascent Avenue. T.Hethe Clark Geoffrey M.Wardle Joshua J.Leonard Preston B.Rutter Matthew C.Parks T:208,388.1000 251 E Front St,Suite 310 P 208.388,1001 PO Box 639 clorkwordle.com Boise I 83701 W TOPEKA ST TOpt T�FET � Lp rn w O � I m 23.00' 1 03.00' N I I 8 Mr.ID0005 w o TREE(TYP) I 0 I o ' 9 �. 103.00' n Ln I N I EXI5TIN6 V� I o oo� N PARK5TRIP I o I o STREET PER$ I I 103.00' 1 I JPH. I (TYP) M Z I t" N I CK 2 w N o c"^14 o z 3 7 ¢ I 703,00 n N m I N N Z O Z V I N Z x 3 I o N o m� o W 6 ¢ Z I 0 o D 103.00' � I � C 2- - 1 z Krn m N z io cn u � U Z ao (n t^ I o ^ 0 z 5 + I V I Nn I � CT 41 O 4 I I I o 103.09' (n o N V r I V �W o o Ln , S 3 23,00' 103.00' � M61- Ln Z_1 90.00' 1 szao' — W SA TA STREET W SANTA FE STREET Exhibit Showing Housing Types: The Applicant will prepare an exhibit for purposes of hearing; however, the discussion is fairly simple. In Phase 2, the Applicant is providing alley-loaded product on Block 2, Lots 3-9 (depicted above). The remainder of the project will be front-loading, single-family attached product. Block Length along E. Wolfsburg Avenue: The Staff Report identifies the E. Wolfsburg Avenue as having a block length that is not authorized under the UDC. In the TN-R district, there is a reduced block length of 500 feet; however, modifications may be permitted in accordance with Section 11-6C-3.F.3 of the UDC. This section, in turn, provides that a block face in the TN-R district may extend up to 750 feet where a "pedestrian connection is provided" that provides access to "a qualified open space as defined in subsection 11-3G-3.B...." While we do not believe there is a block face issue (because the open space at the bottom of this block should permit a 750' block face, per the above), the block face in question is currently 508'. Prior to the City Council meeting, we will modify that block face to be at or below 500' (as shown below). W - - - IV1 l - - --- - - - ---- - ��- - -- - aninp Wai ready con cted in Phase ;� tip' � r �� •� B._$. a ' Dix — II f 7 Dead-End Street: Finally, the Staff Report speaks to a dead-end street on S. Midford Way/S. Midford Place. N. Midford Way is not a dead-end street. It intersects with N. Wolfsburg Ave. on the South and W. Santa Fe Street as well as N. Ascent Avenue on the west and north. The only "dead end" is N. Midford Place, which is the cul-de-sac and is well below the permitted 500' length provided in Section 11-6C-3.B.4 of the UDC. There is no dead-end street violation. During follow-up discussions with staff, the question was raised as to whether there is a block-face violation on the south and west sides of N. Midford Way and N. Midford Place. We do not believe that is the case. Our measurement does not appear to extend beyond the 500'threshold. In any case,there are extenuating circumstances that were considered with the Phase 1 application. As discussed with the Commission and Council during the initial hearings on this application, there are two topographical constraints on the south side of this project. First, we were required to build the collector— N. San Marco Way—along the entire south boundary of our project. That collector is already constructed. A second constraint affected the first — there is significant grade difference. There is approximately 8' to 10' feet of grade difference between the collector and the pads on N. Midford Way, including a 4' retaining wall along N. San Marco Way that has already been constructed with the collector roadway. This grade difference blocks a pedestrian connection to the collector on the south from N. Midford Way. These topographical constraints mean a less-than 750' block face in this TN-R area should be approved. These matters were considered in connection with Phase 1 and resulted in removal of potential roadway connections to the collector (from the south), as well as confirmation that the Phase 2 access would be at N. Zimmerman Way, rather than further east immediately south of Phase 2 and directly onto the N. San Marco Way collector. Modifications to Conditions of Approval Given the foregoing, the Applicant respectfully requests that the following conditions of approval be removed from the Planning and Zoning recommendation: • Condition A.3 —As shown above, there is not a code requirement to require a pedestrian facility along N. Midford Way to N. San Marco Way and any such connection is precluded by grade difference and topography. With regard to Condition A.4,we will modify this block face prior to City Council to be 500' or less. We look forward to discussing these matters at hearing. Very truly yours, T. Hethe Clark HC