Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Planning Memo To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager CC: Megan Johnson, Anna Canning, Bill Nary, Clerk's Office, Project File Date: April 26, 2007 Re: Meadowlake Village North (pP-07-009, CUP-07-008) Applications for 5-3-07 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 1bis project was originally assigned to Justin Lucas. Prior to his departure from the City, Justin was working with the applicant on this project. However, Justin did not prepare a staff report on this project before he left. Because Justin is no longer employed by the City, and Planning Staff is unable to prepare a comprehensive report for this project in such a short time frame, staff is requesting that the Commission open and continue the public hearing for the subject development for two weeks, to May 17th. 1bis should allow Amanda Hess, who is taking over this application from Justin, enough time to familiarize herself with the project and prepare a complete staff report. Staff has contacted the Applicant regarding this request, and they have been understanding of the situation and supportive of the request for a two week continuance. ~i-\~~i ~::\ _ "~TL' , ( -.,\ -1" ,"-I -:~~,.\":- .. ,I , ,,"'" . , " ,~'''' k, ' , "' ____.j ~N.. APR l 6 20m ~~:~"Ii:~~ gt;'~;;~~ilf:~;~~~, Project: Meadowlake Village North Location size of property and existingzoning: oning The proposed subdivision is located on the south side of E. Franklin Road off of S. Touchmark Way. The site has not been previously platted. The property is within the City's Area of Impact and Urban Service Planning Area and is currently zoned L-O and C-G. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Undeveloped Meadowlake Village property, zoned L-O 2. East: Edgeview Estates Subdivision No. 1, zoned Rl-C (City of Boise) 3. South: Undeveloped Meadowlake Village property and the golf course, zoned L-O 4. West: Developed and undeveloped Meadowlake Village property, zoned L-O Applications: Preliminary Plat, CUP, Variance, Miscellaneous for DA Modification Overall Project Description & Subdivision Information: 1. Residential Lots: 52 2. Non-residential Lots: 2 office / commercial 3. Total Building Lots: 54 4. Common Lots: 10 5. Other Lots: 0 6. Total Lots: 64 7. Open Lots: 0 8. Residential Area: ,. 12.38 acres 9. Gross Density: 2.62 units per acre 10. Average Lot Size: 9,987 square feet Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: The sole access to this phase of the development will be from an existing public street, S. Touchmark Way, which currently connects with Franklin Road. All internal roads will be public streets. No stub connections are proposed from this phase to adjacent future phases of Meadowlake Village. City Staff is generally supportive of the proposed street layout, but for the cul-de-sac length (see Preliminary Plat Analysis and Variance Analysis in the staff report). Existing Constraints and Opportunities: The Ridenbaugh Canal runs adjacent to this site. The Canal should be protected. Landscaping & Amenities: 1. Width of street buffer(s): N/A 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: N/A 3. Percentage of site as open space: 5.12 acres (25.9%) 4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to micropathways should comply with UDC 11-313-12. Common, open -space lots should include at least one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet (UDC 11-3G-3-E2). Landscaping within parkways should comply with UDC 11-313- 7C. To qualify as open space, parkways shall be a minimum of eight feet (8') in width, measured from back -of -curb to edge -of -sidewalk and shall contain trees (UDC 11-3G-3B-5). Comprehensive Plan Designations: Mixed Use — Community Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: Generally, yes. Compliance with UDC: Generally, yes. Elevations: Yes Outstanding Issues) for Commission: 1. The streets within this development are proposed to terminate in dead -ends as cul-de-sacs. As such, the Applicant is requesting a variance from the UDC 11-6C-3B.4 standard to allow the streets within this phase of Meadowlake Village to exceed the maximum 450-foot cul-de-sac length. 2. Staff is supportive of the provision of, at minimum, one stub connection. Staff believes that the Meadowlake Village property is large enough to accommodate this type development while fully complying with the UDC standards. Staff believes there are no topographical features or other physical characteristics of this lot which would prevent full compliance with UDC 11-6C-3B.4 standard. To support this, the PD concept has always depicted a north / south roadway through the east portion of this site to promote connectivity and better traffic flow within the development. 3. Staff requested that the Applicant provide the office / commercial elevations to Planning Staff prior to the public hearing or at the time of the public hearing. Additionally, Staff also requested the Applicant provide a concept plan for the office / commercial lots which depict the orientation of buildings, the parking lot layout, and how these buildings will access the public road system. 4. The Applicant requested that the rear setbacks for the development be 20 feet, as measured from back -of -home to back -of -home. Staff requested that the rear yard setback be in accord with the R- 8 standard of 12 feet, measured from property line. 5. Per the conditions of approval for the Touchmark Living Center / Meadowlake Village development, a 10-foot minimum buffer adjacent to the Edgeview Estates Subdivision (beyond the canal easement) is required. To support this, the PD concept has always depicted a usable, walkable area that is adjacent to and extends the entire length of the canal. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of said PP, CUP, and MI applications subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. However, Staff recommends denial of the subject VAR application. NOTES: RECEIVED JUL 17 2007 Project: Meadowlake Village North City of Meridian City Clerk Office Location: south side of Franklin Road off of Touchmark Way. The property is currently zoned L- O and C-G. Applications: preliminary plat, conditional use permit, variance (withdrawn), and DA modification. Highlights of Proposed Development: The Applicant has applied for Conditional Use approval to modify the conceptual PD for the Meadowlake Village development. Concurrently, the Applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of 52 single-family residential lots, 10 common lots, and 2 office / commercial lots on 19.80 acres. The Applicant has also applied for a modification to the existing Development Agreement (DA) in effect for the site Other: In May 2001, The Touchmark Living Centers / Meadowlake Village development was annexed (AZ-99-021) and granted conceptual approval as a planned development (PD) to house a mix of office, retail, single-family residential, and multi -family residential uses in an L-O (Limited Office) zone (CUP-99-039). Each of the phases requires detailed CUP approval. The subject applications, Phase III of the Meadowlake Village project, propose modification to the approved PD and CUP concept, and development agreement in effect for development, as this phase is not consistent with the 2003 plan. Elevations: Yes Commission Recommendation: approval at May 17, 2007 public hearing; the Commission recommended denial of the requested VAR application. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Megan Johnson (Applicant's Representative), Bruce Dalrymple (Developer, VP for Touchmark of the Treasure Valley) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Welcome Adamson (Meadowlake Village Resident) iv. Written testimony: None Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Connectivity within the Meadowlake development; ii. The Applicant's desire for the development's residents to have a private and safe (no cut - through traffic) neighborhood. This is the primary reasoning for the cul-de-sacs and the variance request; iii. Whether the request for a variance passes the "Findings Test" (i.e. a hardship exists that would necessitate a variance). The Commission determined that there is no such hardship; iv. The Applicant did not provide the site plans and building elevations for the proposed commercial lots, as required by Staff. However, during the public hearing, the Developer proposed that each lot be subject to the Conditional Use Permit process in lieu of Staffs request; v. Cul-de-sacs are not conducive to emergency vehicles; Project: Meadowlake Village North (continued) Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. That, prior to development of either of the two commercial lots in Meadowlake Village North, procurement of CUPS will be required so that the Commission can evaluate the respective site plans and building elevations; and ii. That neither of the commercial lots take direct lot access to S. Touchmark Way. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The Commission supported denying the Applicant's variance request regarding cul-de-sac length and supported Staff's requirement for connectivity by means of making Nistler Court a through -street at the location of the proposed emergency access. On May 29t', the Applicant submitted revised plans to Planning Staff which depict a private street connection at the south property line instead of at the northeast corner where the emergency access was required (see Condition 1.2.3 below). Also at that time, the Applicant formally submitted a letter for withdrawal of the requested variance, as the proposed street eliminates the need for said variance. Staff has evaluated the new plat against the City's regulations, supports the Applicant's revisions, and has updated the staff report to reflect the revisions [save the conditions outlined in Exhibit B as the Council should modify these]; ii. Condition 1.2.3 should be removed from the staff report as a public street stub [at the northwest corner of the property] is no longer required by Staff, iii. Condition 1.2.4 should also be removed from the staff report as an emergency access is no longer warranted with the proposed construction of a private street within the development; iv. Staff requires of the Applicant a completed private street application; please add a condition (1.2. 13) requiring the Applicant to submit a private street application; and v. Condition 1.2.10 should be removed from the staff report as the Applicant has provided documentation that a 48" or larger pipe would be required for covering the Ridenbaugh Canal. Notes: