HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplicant Response- __..,_
_,._
---
I - ~ 1=1'S Al LA~n/
~ .
i ~ i
~ J _Ll-
I
i
I
Vin errrnil to ncruurirrg~! rrrerirlinucitit.or~
October 15, 2009
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
c/o Aiuna Canning, Plaiuning Director
33 E. Broadway, Suite 202
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: AZ-09-008/Meridian Crossing
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission Members:
RICHARD H. ANDRUS
JOANN C. BUTLER
T. HETHE CLARK
MICHAEL T. SPINK
(?_08) 3F3E3-1093
~I~iuTl_ERC?sr~u~l«I~TLr.R.cor.l
RECEiVF,D
OCT 152009
CITY OFG~f• manN
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
On behalf of our client, Meridian 118, LLC, and Stanley Consultants, v,~e would like to
take this opportunity to tell the Commission that we have appreciated, very much,
working with your staff i~ corulection with the annexation and rezone of our client's
property. Your staff has met with us several times and cordially and professionally
helped us understand and work through the City's processes.
As part of the process, staff has asked us to provide vt~ritten comments on the staff
report, which we are happy to do. There are not many. We'll address our comments
with references to the relevant pages of the staff report.
Page 3:
In the last paragraph, staff notes that the proposed FAR for the MUC zone is
lower than desired for the area. Staff's continent caused us to review our FAR I
calculations. We apologize because vv~c discovered that we had calculated the '
FAR incorrectly. A copy of the corrected calculations is enclosed ~~ith this letter. /
The FAR in the MUC area ranges from .98 to 2.45, which is consistent with the
desired range of 1,00-1.25 or snore. The FAR in the HDE area ranges from .77 to
1.31 and will likely increase as we add the parking sh•uctures (which will
increase the amowlt of building area thus increasing the FAR). We agree with
staff that as detailed development plans are prepared and the project is phased ii
over Hme, that those plans ~~ill be consistent with the Cit}%s vision for FAR.
251 E. FRONT' STREET
SUITE 200
RU. Box 639
BOISE. IDAHO 83701
?_08-388-1000
208-388-1001 1 F)
WWW.SF'IN K~UTLE R.COM \~~
October 15, 2009
Meridian Plalu~ing & Zoning Conunission
C~O Alu1a Cd11111ng, P1aluling Director
Page 2 of 7
Page ~:
In the second paragraph, staff indicated that "no lodging uses are currently
proposed." Although lodging has not specifically been called out on the concept
plan, our client does intend to court lodging companies for Meridian Crossing.
Page 7 and paragraph 1.2.a, Page 3 of Exhibit C:
We are not sure what is meant by the "Northwest Pipeline Development
Guidelines." Our client had extensive conversations with Gordon Hamilton at
Northwest Pipeline and received email correspondence from Northwest Pipeline
confirming that the concept plan was acceptable to Northwest Pipeline.
Specifically Mr. Hamilton said: "We're very pleased with the overall
consideration that you have given to our 75 foot pipeline easement through the
property. At the concept level you are in accord with the guidelines that are
described in our developer's handbook. As the designs become mare detailed
and the specifics of the infrash•ucture are determined I'm sw•e that issues will
develop that have to lie worked through. Based on this preliminary work I'm
optimistic that conflicts can be successfully resolved. Your initial concept for the
use of the easement as a park and path area will help to Inininuze these conflicts
and Ue a benefit to the residents." There was no discussion regardu1g limiting
uses within 440 feet of the pipeline.
The enclosed diagram shows the effect that such a limitation would have on the
project. We do understand the concept being stated here, and our client is not
promoting schools and hospitals near the easement (although we believe the City
may find it has approved such uses within 440 feet of the pipeline in other areas
of the City). Because the easement, and our client's additional property, serves
aS the malol' lllleal' pal'k tlll'OUgll t11e pI'Oject, we can well imagine certain uses,
such as continuilg care residences, taking advantage of that park. We do not
want to preclude such uses.
Paragraph 1.2, page 3 of Exhibit C:
We will be pleased to work with the City's Plaruzing and Legal staff to negotiate
a Development Agreement. We want to note that we did submit tl~e
Development Agreement fee of $303.00 when we subnutted our application. A
copy of the receipt is enclosed.
Page 8 and paragraph 1.2.c, Page 3 of Exhibit C:
October 15, 2009
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
c/o Anna Canning, Planning Director
Page 3 of 7
We are not sure ~~hat is meant by the term "substantially comply" in the first
sentence. This sentence asks that we "substantially comply" as the concept plan
morphs alto more detailed plans. We think of this term as having a fairly sh•ong
quantitative coiunotation (more associated with, for example, the transition from
a prelinninary plat to a fi1a1 plat). Some degree of flexibility will be needed as the
plans become more detailed. Because the rest of this paragraph requires us to be
"consistent" with the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan and Meridian ordinances, we
ask that that same word be used in the first sentence.
Of course, we welcome an explanation of what it means to "substantially
comply." We may be dancing on the head of a pin.
Page 8 and paragraph 1.2.f, Page 3 of Exhibit C:
Would you please confirm that the phrase "10-foot wide segment(s) of the City's
lnnllltl-use regional pathway system' has the same nneaning as a "10-foot
side~~alk"?
Paragraph 3.2h, Page 6 of Exhibit C:
We ask that this condition be deleted or modified. It will be impossible to "show
all proposed or existing hydrants for all new consh•uction or additions to existing
bU11dIIngS Wltlnlln 1,000 feet of the project." We believe the Fire and Building
Deparhnents are more likely to understand what the City has required of new
consh•uction outside our project.
Paragraph 3.22, Page 7 of Exhibit C:
We ask that this condition be deleted -- unless this is not a condition but merely a
statement tieing made by the Fire Department about a ladder h•uck and the
Department is not saying that we must pay for a ladder h•uck.
We understand that, consistent with the City's capital improvements plan, a
ladder truck was purchased this year. Using today's adopted impact fee rate for
the City, our client will be paying approximately $1.1 million in fire impact fees.
We believe these fees (that are directly tied to this growth) can be used by the
City for any number of fire-related improvements (ilcludung a ladder h•uck)
envisioned by the City's future capital improvements plans.
One final continent on a matter that does not affect the staff report or the conditions of
approval but that we would like the Commission and staff to consider and keep in
mind. If approved, we would very much appreciate working with the City's Plaiuning
and Legal staff to explore the possibility of establishing a Community Infrash•ucture
Octoher 15, 2009
Meridian Plaruling & Zoning Conunission
c/ o Aiu1a Caruung, Planning Director
Page 4 of 7
Dish•ict for our project (and perhaps other property in the Ten Mile area). We envision a
CID as being an invaluable tool that would allow our client and the City to create the
community infrash•ucture (not the project-specific ii~frash•ucture) encouraged by the Ten
Nlile Specific Area Plan, which is so necessary if the City is going to realize the goals of
that Plail.
Thank you for your lime and we look forward to meeting with you this evening.
Sincerely,
,;~,. ._ ~r`_x,C_.
JoAnn C. Butler
JCB:gs
Enclosures
c via email: Brad Boe (bboeLu~sightholdings.com)
Pete Friedman (pfriedtnan~ineridiancity.or~)
Sonya Watters (swatters@mei•idiancity.org)
Mike Wilson (Wilson MikeC~stanleYgroup.com)
m
C
.N
N
U
C
(B
.`
C
~,~
N 0
8 0
8 0
8 0
8
0
8
~
~+ Y
~ p
00 p
00 p
00 p
00 p
O
d O pp
Y S ~ ~ G
~~[7`
C O
~ O
~ O
S O
^ oOp
,O O
N O
~ N
1N O
~ ~
V O
N
7 a
O
~ °o °
8
-0
~~ 8 0
N
~
d
~ S O
a ~
O y
LL ~ ~ M
~ G
' g 8
O ~
O 8
O ~
O 8
O 8
N
~ ~
~
~ n. n 1
~~ N
N °iD
~. 'd o 0 0 o O
o o
o °o
ro~
7 'H ~
~ u4i
N g
~ g
~
°~
8 ~
W
o~
0
e ~
~y A g
O ~
O ~
O a
O ~
O ~
O ~ N ~
O ~
O ° ~
N v
N vni ~ ~
O cr
O ~
O °
O ~
O ~
G
~
~~
ro
~
~
~
S
~
8
8
°g
8
~
~
~
S
~
~
~
~
~
~ n
y
a
G ~
C yy
N
n O
O N
N ~ O
(D ~ p
W
GGG
N ~
m
~ a
m~ ~ o
N ~
N ~
M ~ ~ g
N $~ o S o go v
O
~LL
_
N N ~
w
M
n ~
w
~
M ~
~pn
8
M ~
m
~
M ~
~n
ID
M ~
poi
O
N ~
v
N ~
~
~
M `~
~a(ppo
N B
Np
~
N ~
pn
O
V ~
a
M
N ~
~D ~
o
~ ~
N
^ 8
poo
~D 8
0
O 8
ry0
l0 8
0
N 8
0~ ~
y
b
O
y
Q`
9 Q
y
O
O
~
Qj
O
(O
M
n
M
a0
W
V
N
M
N
c0
~D
M
a0
~D
N
OI
Q1
V
n
CI
O
V
~.
o0
M
O
V
N
O
N
M
O
M
~
U ~
a Fj
.-
~
d
N
d
M
d
V
d
N
d
(O
d
n
d
o0
d
•'
s M
W
~
V
~
Ul
~
~D
~
~`
~
a'
a
~
a
K
a
K
a
~
m N
~
~ Q o~ U ^
H H H H
„ac:,aum aJ~
".aia~~ ~ . %3 k
_„_xw„
:Rxa~g R -
~'vv
asp Z Z ., Z Z J
`ww~n a aa8'~ ~°-awW
~ s&5k~ ~ ~@9~~ ~ a@g~~ ~ fi~ggap Q $@
~
„. .
e e
„
~ ~ W
~ x ~ F- H I
~
~ ~ eY
J w ~ ~ w~
=~. - H-
(n (n (n (n W
W ~W qW ~W ~~
b
g~
U ~§ e J
w ~
U
Wg
a ~
~
„ ~ a" ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~~ C7
~m
a
:
o
,sey
g"LR £ 4
.. Y
~
/
L.1. gk~ RpR
F~6. e
~Yv ~
H R
rYv ,~
~Yv _qr®r~Yv/ ~e
LL ~~`tr~ lL ~Sa"a LL 5~~"~% LL i~'f JS
. ~Yg o
~
Q . ~„ oY d. aun5 ~aa Qu. a~kR m:,i`Y
4
~ ~
~
~- M
c ,aad ~
.. sxar ~ r~3s.~= E~~c~§a$3 ~Sa
;-yw ~c"@q
,k=~&dA
~
is9agtl ~9p
...~ a ..
AA7 ~
... +~~
OD ~ ~ N V _ ~
~ ~ ~~
w ~~
J a . J 3 .._ J ~ "s
W
W
~
~
W
:
~ ' ~
~ J p
W s : ~
~ J
s as
W
;
u
~
/
n r
v
gg
Sy
LLSb3 _n LL~~b L€~g
'
~O d
~k g
~
~ r
v
g
~
'
LL
d
tl~
:
aka ~pge a~i g ~'Qa n9a k
Yb
Q ~£~ z
j
Vgf
.,
R
x „ .T .0
}vv
„ a54 ~Aa3 .r x
4a ~
~. ~ YY y
.b$~ Y&~~ A Y~ S
.
a _ e.. .. . ^ @ '.Ne H
N ('7 ~ V ~ CO I~
~' 0 0 ~ 0 ~~ pQ ~
J N~ J J J
W n W ~W ~W ~~W
l• a
U
U
U
U
v
S
¢~' 's~:
~ `~j ~
j
;U Y'
4 3
y'J J
W ~W
„
°
~3 ~
~v/ w~
AS ~
N/ y~~
~v/
/vy
N,y
LL~ 'og~ Y3g~ LL~bYj LL ~'2 $w'LL glgw LL
~s~=...'i, S
w
y
t .
'~~ ~'~~ '~'
'G•
~
a• ~ U
1w~/ ~„~ ~/
~
n
~
a
~a
l
a'ae'~
QaYa
5 11 11 a
~~£
Q~
~
~ g ~
Q•
.''
Q
~ a „ ,~ a ~.
~' ,~
~.
l
..~ ~y ~,% ~" c~ ` ~~~ err ~,
~ ~.~
it ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~- ., :~
.~` ~ 1. ` '~ ~ ~`
is
0
w
~ Z
= W
~ W
N
O] Q
Z W
Q W
~ ~
W d
W N
~ ~
m
~-
~-
' v~
///
%' is ,~ ~ r
n i~
~' / i ~-
~~~ ~~.~~
/~
1~ ~ ~I
~ fi ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
~~
~~ ~''
'`~: ` ~
y
~ ~ ~~ y ~ ~
q
x ~~ Y ~'~rc 1
\ ~ 4 `nt
v ~ ~
~~~ ~ r