Loading...
Letter to Cameron Arial and Planning StaffKENT BROWN PLANNING SERVICES 3161 E Springwood Dr  Meridian, Idaho 83642  Tel.: 208-871-6842  February 10, 2020 Cameron Arial and Planning Staff Meridian City Hall 33 E. Broadway Ave Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Certificate of Zoning Compliance (“CZC”) Application for Entrata Farms Subdivision Phase 1 & Phase 2 Dear Cameron Arial and Planning Staff, Fig Village at Parkside LLC (the “Applicant”), respectfully requests the City of Meridian’s approval of the attached CZC application for Entrata Farms Subdivision Phase 1 & Phase 2. BACKGROUND The Applicant previously submitted a CZC application for Entrata Farms Subdivision Phase 1 to the City on November 15, 2019. The Applicant met with Brian McClure and briefly met with Sonya Allen at the City on January 17, 2020 and received feedback regarding the CZC application. Following the meeting the Applicant received an email from Brian McClure on January 17, 2020, detailing notes from the meeting, attached as Exhibit “A”. The Applicant also talked with Cameron Arial at City Hall on January 17, 2020, and discussed submitting a revised CZC application to include both phases on Entrata Farms concurrently due to the fact that there is no clear delineation between the two phases and any revisions to the plans will include and enhance both phases. This letter is provided to accompany the attached CZC application and provide an overview of the changes made from the originally submitted CZC application and to address the comments received from the City in the email from Brian McClure, dated, January 17, 2020. Please review this letter in conjunction with the CZC application. the Design Review Checklist, and the Design Review Checklist Supplement provided by the Applicant. The Supplement includes the Applicant’s responses to each item listed in the Design Review Checklist. BUILDING ELEVATIONS & LANDSCAPING In response to Staff’s recommendation to modulate the sides of buildings, maintain consistency in materials of all 4-sides of the buildings, and to make the buildings feel different by utilizing a mix of color, materials, landscape palettes, and other site features the Applicant has incorporated the following changes to the building elevations and landscape plans. The Applicant has added additional building elevations for the Payton and Tucker building plans, which are the primary building types in the community: An example of the two elevations for the Payton and Tucker building types are presented below: PAYTON 6-PLEX Elevation “A” Elevation “B” Front: Side: Rear: TUCKER 6-PLEX Elevation “A” Elevation “B” Front: Side: Rear: Some of the key differences between Elevation “A” and Elevation “B” are: a. Roof Structures: Elevation A has a gable-roof, and Elevation B has a hip-roof. The roof pitches have increased for all building plans. The original building plans had the roof pitch at a 4:12 pitch and the revised plans include 5:12 roof pitch, which enhances the overall look and streetscape elevations of the community. b. Front Elevations: Elevation A has a 12” structural architectural modulation/pop-out on the 3rd floor, Elevation B has a 12” architectural modulation/pop-out that is larger and spans both the 2nd and 3rd floor. c. Elevation A’s building color packages include three different colors (2 body color and 1 trim/accent color). Elevation B’s color packages include four different colors (3 body colors and 1 trim/accent color). d. The building materials vary in quantity and scale between the Elevation A and Elevation B. (Please note the following: (1) all pop-outs on the buildings have been revised from the original 3” stucco-faux pop-out to 12” architectural pop-outs with Hardie-board siding incorporated into the pop-out; and (2) Hardie-board siding has been added from the original plans to allow for additional texture and architectural interest to the buildings). e. Side Elevations: Like Elevation B, Elevation A includes a 12” large architectural modulation/pop-out in the middle of the side elevation, but the treatment of architectural bands and use of colors varies between the two elevations. f. Rear Elevations: Elevation B incorporates a larger architectural band at the 3rd floor and utilizes 3 distinct body colors on the building, whereas Elevation A has a narrower band at the 2nd floor and employs a two-body color treatment on the building. g. Building Colors: The color packages for the various buildings have been revised from the initial CZC application to provide for a greater variety of building colors while still providing for a balanced color-palette throughout the community. The colors packages include greens, blues, grays and tans. See the Building Color Exhibit Plan Sheet L3.8 attached as Exhibit “B”. An overview of the elevations of all building types and the various elevation treatments (Elevation A and Elevation B) are included in Exhibit “C,” Building Elevation Exhibit Plan Sheet L3.9 – L3.11. Additionally, full color 4-sided elevations of each building type are included with the CZC application. To further address the Staff’s comments regarding making the buildings feel different, the Applicant has revised the landscape plans so that there is now seven unique landscape packages/typical for the buildings within the community. Each of the seven landscape packages/typical for the buildings include an outdoor private space area for each unit that is delineated from the common areas of the community by utilizing fencing and/or hedges and other plantings. The plantings and materials used in each of the landscape packages have been selected to promote a variety of colors and textures throughout the community and provide each building with a unique look within the community. Additionally, the Applicant has maximized tree canopy throughout the common areas of the community while accommodating for spacing for underground utility and storm drain system conflicts. Attached as Exhibit “D,” please see the Typical Multifamily Building Planting Plan Sheets L3.4 – L3.7 for illustrations of the seven distinct building landscape packages/typical. To clearly demonstrate that no two adjacent buildings in the community are the same, the Applicant has provided a Master Landscape and Architectural Site Plan, which depicts the specific building type, building elevation, color package and landscape package/typical for each building within the community. The Master Landscape and Architectural Site Plan Sheet L3.3 has been included below as Exhibit “E”. LIGHTING AND WALKWAYS In response to Staff’s recommendation to address lighting and pedestrian connectivity. The Applicant has provided a Master Circulation Plan Sheet L2a, as seen in Exhibit “F,” which illustrates the sidewalks/walkways for the community and highlights the additional sidewalks/walkways that have been added to enhance the pedestrian access and connectivity for the community. As shown in Exhibit “F,” the sidewalks/walkways have been designed to promote safe pedestrian traffic flow within the community and provides access and connections to neighboring properties and public roadways. The Applicant has also provided as Exhibit “G” a Master Lighting Plan Sheet L2b, which illustrates the area and site lighting throughout the community. To address the Staff’s comments regarding lighting, the Applicant has added additional site lighting adjacent to the basketball court as well as the open space area on the western side of the community. Furthermore, each building unit throughout the community will have exterior carriage-style lighting that are controlled with photoelectric sensors located near the front door and garage doors. The exterior lighting at the front-entries are used to provide lighting and promote a safe pedestrian environment along the sidewalks/walkways and open space corridors between and adjacent to the buildings. The exterior lighting along the garages provide for a safe environment throughout the roadways and intersections within the community. TEN MILE INTERCHANGE SPECIFIC AREA PLAN (“TMISAP”) In the January 17, 2020, meeting with Brian McClure, Brian provided both the Applicant and me a list of concepts regarding the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Plan, with specific sections highlighted. The highlighted sections included the following:  Street-Oriented Design  Residential Buildings (porches should be located along at least 30% of the front façade of the buildings)  Neighborhood Design (all residential neighborhoods should be developed in consideration of traditional neighborhood design principals and concepts…)  Mixed Housing Stock (diversity of residential housing…)  Architecture and Design (front porches and garages accessed from an alley are usually the standard in residential areas)  Complete Streets (streets designed to serve all users…)  Streetscaping (all streets should include street trees within the right-of-way)  Streets as Public Spaces (residential streets should provide for an appropriate street canopy designed to shade both street and sidewalk and serve as a visual buffer between street and the adjacent buildings) The revisions, discussed above and highlighted in the Applicant’s Supplement to the Design Review Checklist, were made to address these concepts. The building and landscape plans have been revised to provide a private porch area in the front of the buildings, with fencing and landscaping used to delineate the public and private spaces within the community. There are numerous different building types and building elevations offered to provide residents a variety of housing stock in the community. The trees will provide canopy throughout the community and a variety of plantings and trees have been strategically placed to provide visual buffers between roadways and buildings. Lastly, it’s important to note that Applicant worked diligently with the City’s Staff during the design and entitlement process of the community, as evidenced in the Staff Report which was included in the City’s Development Agreement for Entrata Farms, which was recorded March 14, 2019. In Section V.A, the Staff report states the following: “The proposed site design is compatible with the multi-family development to the east; and should be compatible with future medium high density residential uses to the west when that property redevelops at some point in the future. Buildings are brought up to the street buffer along Franklin Rd. for a uniform street presence with primary building facades facing the street. Six-plex structures, 2-stories in height on the ends with 3-stories in the middle, are proposed along Franklin Rd. that provide appropriate transition, architectural interest, massing and scale with the Ten Mile area. Pedestrian walkways are planned throughout the development to provide for pedestrian interconnectivity with the development as well as with adjacent developments and the Ten Mile area. For these reasons, Staff finds the proposed development is consistent with the design characteristics of the Ten Mile Area envisioned in the TMISAP.” Further demonstrating the Applicant’s desire to work with the City’s Staff to comply with the TMISAP, Staff wrote of the Entrata Farms development in the Section V1.A. of the Staff Report: “Staff finds the proposed development is premiere in that it provides open space, site amenities and parking far exceeding UDC standards; provides a housing type (i.e. townhome style multi-family units) that will contribute to the variety of housing types in this area (atypical to the usual garden style apartments); will provide much needed housing with the Ten Mile area in close proximity to future shopping and employment uses; and is consistent with the TMISAP.” It is also pertinent to note that Section 5.1.(a) of the Development Agreement states the following: “Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, site plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit, building elevations/floor plans included in Section VII, and the provisions contained herein.” CONCLUSION The Applicant has made extensive efforts to revise building plans, elevations, color palettes, landscape plans, sidewalks/walkways, lighting and other site features to accommodate requests from the Planning Staff. I believe the revised plans incorporate the enhancements requested by Staff and the plans comply with the requirements set forth in the Architectural Standards Design Review Checklist. Therefore, on behalf of the Applicant, I respectfully request your approval of the CZC application for Entrata Farms Subdivision Phase 1 and Phase 2. We look forward to your timely approval of this application. Feel free to contact me with any comments. Sincerely, Kent Brown Planner Exhibit “A” Exhibit “B” Exhibit “C” Exhibit “C” continued Exhibit “C” continued Exhibit “D” Exhibit “D” - continued Exhibit “D” – continued Exhibit “D” – continued Exhibit “E” Exhibit “F” Exhibit “G”