CC - Applicant's Response to Staff Report 4-20 DEVELOPMENT REAL PROPERTY ZONINC
CLARK
WARDLE
T. Hethe Clark
(208)388-3327
hclark@clarkwardle.com
Via electronic mail(jdodson@meridiancity.org)
April 18, 2021
Joseph Dodson
Current Associate Planner
City of Meridian—Community Development
33 E. Broadway Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Movado Mixed Use
CW File No. 21895.27
Dear Joe:
We have appreciated your work on this application. We have had the opportunity to review the current
staff report, including the summary of the Planning and Zoning Commission action on March 4, 2021.
This letter is intended to be a reminder of actions taken prior to the March 4, 2021 hearing. We would
also like to respond to the issues discussed by P&Z at the March 4 hearing and identify compromises to
address those items.
As noted in the following materials, we listened to the Planning & Zoning Commission's concerns and
continue to believe that this proposed amendment is appropriate for the following reasons:
• First, the "second row" of commercial development included in the original Movado approval is
simply not commercially viable, particularly in light of continued commercial development to
the west at Eagle Road;
• Second, although we certainly agree that any development agreement modification must be
justified, the expectation cannot be that master-planned communities will not change or evolve
in light of changing circumstances. No one has a crystal ball that accurate; modifications should
be considered where appropriate;
T.Hethe Clark Geoffrey M.Wardle Joshua 1.Leonard Ryley Siegner T:208.388.1000 251 E Front St.Suite 310
F:208.388.1001 PO Box 639
clarkwardle.com Boise ID 83701
• Third, in light of neighbor comments, the applicant has agreed to further mitigation in the form
of a single-level restriction against the homes on the south. This should remove any concern
about "integration" as the residential product will exactly match what is against it. It is also far
more consistent than the variety of two-story commercial uses that would be permitted as of
right if this amendment is not approved.
• Finally, we believe this application does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, which
mandates that "[r]esidential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area...
[while] [r]etail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area."
City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, 3-18, -19. When looking at the mixed-use regional
corridor in this area, commercial uses tend to dominate. This brings the residential and
commercial uses in this area to a mix that more closely supports the Comprehensive Plan.
We appreciate Staff and the Council's attention to these issues and look forward to further discussion
on April 20, 2021.
Very truly yours,
C c
T. Hethe Clark
HC/bdb
c: Client
Background
This application is related to the Movado Mixed Use Development off of Overland Road. While the
project has, overall, been a tremendous success, the commercial area shown on the present site plan
near Overland Road has stagnated. While there is a location for commercial development that we
believe is still appropriate and marketable (against Overland Road), the second tier of commercial in this
project has very little visibility and simply cannot compete with the commercial development that is
ongoing just a few hundred yards to the west near Eagle Road.
Actions Prior to March 4, 2021 Hearing
The proposal is to replace a portion of the commercial development with attached townhomes product,
creating a transition from single-family residential to attached townhomes to commercial. The
application includes a number of amenities, including a coffee kiosk for the benefit of the apartment
areas, as well as a bike barn.
In response to staff comments, the applicant also proposed a plaza and seating area to tie together the
commercial areas on the northwest.
slttlNb PAEA RETAIN/PR mi
w MN NEs ExISTINv BUFFER TREE E.aVERLANO ROAD
yl _ 4 PLAMI165(TTFJ
Ez15tIN L HN CtYP) '
I nzEE(rrPl ll
I
1,N0 SF
CCMM/OFFICE BLMG
� OOMM/OFFICE BLBG : I'
V4o sF p,,
I /
ICU�✓_ / / /! 1'1`
✓/, i jj jj .�,� 1
s
Staff supported this proposal and modified the staff report accordingly. The applicant remains in
agreement with the conditions of approval proposed in the Staff Report.
Issues Raised—and Responses to—the Discussion at the March 4, 2021 Hearing
The primary issues that we heard at the March 4, 2021 hearing—as discussed by P&Z and summarized in
the Staff Report—include the following:
• Concern with losing commercial areas;
• Concern with any revision to a master-planned community and development agreement;
• Lack of"integration" between the residential and commercial areas; and
• Conformity with the comprehensive plan.
Each of these items are discussed below:
First, with regard to loss of commercial areas, we are sympathetic to the concern. However, this project
has been underway for several years but with no success in moving this commercial area forward. It has
been marketed by some of the best brokers in the valley, including Mark Bottles, who has concluded
that the current layout simply does not make sense and that a reduced commercial footprint is more
appropriate. You have a letter in the record from Mr. Bottles, who will be present at the hearing on
Tuesday night to further discuss these issues.
Second, one of the consistent themes of the March 4, 2021 hearing was a discomfort with any
modification to any development agreement whatsoever. Of course, development agreements provide
the City, neighbors, and the property owner with a level of predictability. That said, circumstances
change and original presumptions may prove not to be appropriate. That is why the City has provided a
procedure for development agreements in the first place.
The question is not whether development agreement modifications should ever be considered. That
would be an impossible standard for large, multi-year, multi-phase developments, which simply must be
able to respond to changes. Instead, the question is whether, under the circumstances specifically
before the Council, a modification is appropriate. We believe that is the case here. Commercial has
been tried, has not been successful, and the experts are indicating that a change in use is the best path
forward.
Third, we believe the original proposal of townhomes was consistent with and provided an appropriate
transition to the homes to the south. In light of the concerns stated by the neighbors, the applicant has
gone one step further and will restrict the homes on the south against the existing residential to single-
level. We have prepared elevations to show what these buildings would look like, as shown below:
--- ------ -- +- ----- �-- I i+-- -�'- -- - ----i- t-�-
Fri!ELEIgT o. _.
We believe this concession should address any concern about compatibility at this border. We believe it
should be far more compatible and acceptable than the two-story uses that could be located at this
border as a matter of right.
And, finally, we believe this application fully conforms with the applicable Comprehensive Plan
designation of Mixed Use — Regional (MU-R). "The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of
employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections."
(Comprehensive Plan, 3-18). In terms of the content of that mix, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that
"[r]esidential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area." Id. (emphasis added).
Commercial, on the other hand, should comprise a maximum of fifty percent(50%).
The area is shown on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as part of a larger Mixed Use-
Regional area:
IL
1 �
-t
As shown below,the Mixed Use-Regional area of which this property is a part (generally,the areas south
of Overland and east of Eagle Road) is a vast sea of commercial.
lot
° ` ON-
.�.,• �v
•� I4 •tip- •
' , �
We believe this application brings the area much closer to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by
adding complementary residential uses very close to commercial and employment centers. We hope
the Council will agree and look forward to the conversation on Tuesday evening.
Charlene Way
From:Joseph Dodson
Sent:Monday, April 19, 2021 11:18 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: Movado Subdivision
Attachments:Ltr to Joe Dodson (4-18-21).pdf
Hello,
Please see the attached Applicant response letter for the Movado Mixed Use development.
Thank you!
Joseph Dodson | Current Associate Planner
City of Meridian | Community Development
33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208.884.5533 |
Built for Business, Designed for Living
All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law,
in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law.
From: Hethe Clark <hclark@clarkwardle.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 6:34 PM
To: Joseph Dodson <jdodson@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Cameron Arial <carial@meridiancity.org>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; jconger@congergroup.com;
Marcel Lopez <marcel@congergroup.com>
Subject: Movado Subdivision
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Joe, please find attached a letter in connection with the Movado project. This responds to the staff report and P&Z
recommendation.
Note that we also are offering to do a single-story limit against the southern boundary. This should address any
compatibility issues in a way that well exceeds even the current entitlement, which would potentially allow two-story
commercial uses immediately adjacent to the residences.
Please let me know if you have any trouble accessing the attachment. Thanks again for all your work on this.
T. Hethe Clark, Partner
251 E Front Street, Suite 310 | PO Box 639 | Boise, Idaho 83701
hclark@clarkwardle.com | Direct 208.388.3327 | Fax 208.388.1001
DEVELOPMENT ATTORNEYS
1
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named as recipients. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or
protected
from disclosure under applicable law including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission,
please notify
the sender immediately by telephone. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this transmission, disclose its contents, or take any action in reliance on the information it contains.
THIS E-MAIL IS NOT AN OFFER OR ACCEPTANCE: Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any other law of similar import, absent an express statement to the contrary
contained in this e-mail, neither this e-mail nor any attachment are an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract, and are not intended to bind the sender or any other person or entity.
2