Memo from Planning
RECEIVED
JUL 1 7 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Applications: preliminary plat, conditional use permit, variance (withdrawn), and DA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 V AR 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
111. Commenting: Welcome Adamson (Meadowlake Village Resident)
IV. Written testimony: None
Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
1. Connectivity within the Meadowlake development;
11. 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;
111. 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
11. That neither of the commercial lots take direct lot access to S. Touchmark Way.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City COlll1cil:
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 29th, the
Applicant submitted revised plans to Planning Staff which depict a private street
connection at the south property line instead of at the northeast comer 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];
11. Condition 1.2.3 should be removed from the staff report as a public street stub [at the
northwest comer of the property] is no longer required by Staff;
111. 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: