HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Summary' ~F,CF,T~TF,~
Item #4: Avendale (aka Silver Oaks) - MCU-09-0021DES-09-026
~~EC° 0 3 ?Q09
Applications:
- A CUP modification is requested to change the building elevations & site plan previously approved with ~i~tlfrfe~~~tefysion~p~
the CUP; '/ITY CLEni<S c")FFiGE
Design Review for the proposed multi-family structures & site.
Location, size of property and existing zoning: The site is zoned R-15, consists of 24 acres, and is located on the north side of W.
Franklin Road, approximately'/4 mile west of N. Ten Mile Road.
History:
- This site was annexed in 2005 with an R-15 zoning district. A DA was required as a provision of annexation. Concurrently, a
preliminary plat & a CUP for a planned development consisting of 70 multi-family 4-plex structures totaling 280 units wl a
private clubhouse, park, & pathways was also approved.
Initially, one building elevation & floor plan was approved with the CUP/PD which consisted of 2 & 3 bedroom units of 1,030
s.f. & 1,185 s.f. respectively. That building elevation and sife plan is no longer valid; the building elevations & site plan
approved with the time extension in 2008 replaced the former plans.
y In 2007, the Director approved a 1 year time extension to record the final plat & commence the use approved with the CUP.
In 2008, a 2nd time extension for 18 months was granted by Council. With the time extension request, a site plan & building
elevations were submitted consistent with the previously approved plans but with condominiums instead of 4-plex structures
wl rental units. The site plan called out 3 specific "neighborhood" areas w/ each neighborhood consisting of different
architectural styles (Cape Cod, Mediterranean, and Prairie); three different variations of each of those styles for a total of 9
different looks was planned to provide architectural variety within the project. A total of 4 different floor plans were also
proposed. The City Council strongly favored the revised plans in comparison fo those originally approved. As a condition of
approval of the time extension, the applicant was required to develop the site consistent with the submitted concept plan &
building elevations. These revised elevations, floor plans, and site plan were included in the existing CUP and replaced the
original plans approved in 2005. The original sife plan, floor plan, and elevations are no longer valid.
Site Plan: A revised site plan is proposed that depicts the same number of units, open space, & amenities as previously approved. The
overall building layout is not changing on the revised site plan as underground utilities have already been installed on the site; however,
the location of each building type is proposed to change. The proposed site plan depicts the location of each building type by letter (A,
B, or C) on each lot. The site is no longer planned to develop with different "neighborhoods"; the 3 different proposed building types are
now planned to be interspersed throughout the site.
Building Elevations: The proposed elevations incorporate substantially the same design elements & mix of materials (stucco,
horizontal siding, shingle siding, stone veneer, and brick with asphalt shingle roofing), although not quite as much brick & stone veneer
is proposed as before, as the previously approved designs which consisted of row houses & 2 different condominium concepts.
However, instead of individual entrances to each unit from the main level resembling single-family units, the proposed entries for each
unit are from a central stairwell consistent with amulti-family structure. Only 1 floor plan with 2 & 3 bedroom units, and 3 building types
with no variations within those types are proposed now, as opposed to 4 different floor plans with 2 & 3 bedroom units & 3 types of
building designs with 3 different variations within each of the designs for a total of 9 different "looks," as previously proposed.
Design Review: Because a modification to the CUP is proposed, compliance w/current design standards is also required. Staff has
reviewed the application for compliance with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 pertaining to architectural character, color
and materials, and pedestrian walkways, and found the proposed changes to be in substantial compliance with those standards.
Because significant changes are requested to the previously approved building elevations & site plan, and because new design
standards are in effect that weren't previously, the director convened a committee of design professionals to review the project &
provide a recommendation on the interpretation and application of the guidelines contained in the Design Manual, as allowed in UDC
11-5A-2. A meeting was held with the design professionals committee on October 17th. At the meeting, the committee noted the
following:
• The variety of plans & separate neighborhood feel have been lost;
• The quality of the building elevations has been sacrificed in the form of non-separate entries; low roofs have essentially been
lost; the quantity of the higher quality materials (i.e. stone, brick, etc.) has decreased;
• There is a monotonous repetition in the appearance of the structures, regardless of material types;
• A single floor plan eliminates the ability to provide variety in the appearance of the structures;
• There is no longer modulation on the front sides of the elevations; and
• The basic quality of the elevations has been lost.
Further, because a CUP finding listed in UDC 11-56-6E requires the proposed use to be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan, the Director also requested a recommendation from the design committee on compliance of the proposed changes with the
standards contained in the TMISAP. Based on the standards contained in that plan, the committee found the following:
• Front porches are not provided on the proposed structures as desired in the Plan;
• There is significantly less variety in the housing types proposed from 4 different floor plans with 3 types of building designs
with 3 different variations within each of those designs as was previously approved for a total of 36 different variations, as
opposed to 1 floor plan with 3 building types as now proposed;
• There is no access to the railway corridor proposed; and
• Detached sidewalks are not proposed as desired in the Plan; however, detached sidewalks are not really feasible at this point
due to adjacent parking structures. Additional trees could still be provided in front yard areas.
Based on these findings, the committee recommended denial of the design review application.
Staff Recommendation: The Director has reviewed the proposed building elevations and site plan submitted with the design review
application and the recommendation of the committee. The Director has determined that the changes proposed to the plans do not
meet or exceed the intent of the Design Manual as required by UDC 11-5B-8D to grant approval of design review. Therefore, Staff is
recommending denial of the DES application and consequently recommending denial of the MCU application.
Written Testimony: None
Notes