Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIDLAND 20-26 AVIARY - Applicant Response - 2024.02.26 BRIGHTON – Creating GREAT Places – 2929 W. Navigator Drive, Ste. 400, Meridian, ID 83642 www.brightoncorp.com 208-378-4000 February 26, 2024 To Joseph (Joe) Dodson, AICP – Planner III From Jon Wardle, President - Brighton Development Applicant Response to Midland 20b26 / Aviary Staff Report We concur with and appreciate staff’s opening statement that “…the project IS compliant with all applicable codes, regulations, and policies, should all conditions of approval be complied with.” That statement goes on to note, in “Areas of Special Concern,” that Development Agreements will be required for each of the subareas defined in this unique application. The Lower Five, Highline, and Midland Farms subareas are conceptual only, and subject to future detailed development proposals. Only the Aviary subarea is proposed in detail for PUD and preliminary plat approval. As a follow-up to our recent review of the staff report with planning and engineering staff, we offer ● comments, ● concerns and ● clarifications, and propose five ◘ conditions modifications. PLANNING ITEMS Item 1: Page 23 – Villa Area / Guest Parking COMMENT / CLARIFICATION ● The right-of-way “take” for ITD’s widening of Highway 20-26 is still to be determined. Thus, the application notes that the Villa site plan and open space area to the east are subject to revision when the ROW process is completed. ● To the extent possible given the status of the ROW negotiations, prior to the City Council hearing a revised site plan, and guest parking location and size (concept below) will be provided in updated preliminary plat and landscape plans per Condition F.1, pg. 33. Midland 20-26 / Aviary – February 26, 2024 Page 2 Item 2: Page 25 – Street Buffers COMMENT ● All required street landscape buffers will be depicted in an updated preliminary plat prior to the City Council hearing in accordance with Condition C.2, pg. 31. Item 3: Page 26 – PUD Amenities and Open Space COMMENT ● A pedestrian crossing to the area north of the Highline Canal will depend on if there is functional open space following the Highway 20-26 widening. The updated pre-plat and landscape plan noted in the first item above will depict the remaining area, and access. ● Overall project open space requirements are met but will be recalculated with the 20-26 ROW in the plat and plan updates for assurance. Item 4: Page 26 - Irrigation Pathways / Pg. 30 - Condition B.10 CONDITION MODIFICATION ● The 8-foot pathways along the irrigation laterals and drains will be public, but fencing both sides is problematic. While open fencing along the back of the lots is appropriate, fencing at the easement boundary is subject to canal/drain maintenance damage. ◘ Landscaping to the edge of the canal/drain accesses will make maintenance through a fence difficult. Thus, approval of fencing only on the lot side of the canal/drain easement pathways is requested through the PUD; along with a waiver of Code Section 10-02-07, if required. Item 5: Page 32 – Condition D.1 COMMENT ● Prior to the City Council hearing, the annexation and comprehensive plan amendment maps and legal descriptions will be corrected, as requested. Item 6: Page 33 – Condition F.1 COMMENT ● Same requirement as Item 1, above; same resolution. Item 7: Page 33 – Condition F.3 CONDITION MODIFICATION ◘ Market and other unanticipated factors impact project development phasing. Thus, we request that the PUD Expiration time frame “…for each phase after the first phase,” be two years, instead of one. ENGINEERING ITEMS Item 1: Page 3 – Midland Highway 20-26 Signal / Page 12 – Plat Condition 3 CONCERN ● While in agreement with the intent of the requirement, the signal is under the control and timing of ITD and the Highway District. If their construction program falters, will the city support action by the development community for the installation of an interim signal? Midland 20-26 / Aviary – February 26, 2024 Page 3 Item 2: Page 5 – Rights-of-Way Condition 3 CONDITION MODIFICATION ◘ Modification is requested for the length of the 70-foot ROW of the referenced interior collectors to be as depicted below: Item 3, Page 7 – Streets Condition 2 CONCERN / CLARIFICATION ● What if it is not possible to relocate the noted drain and canal facilities outside the ROW? Will the city allow for canal easements to overlap the ROW? Item 4, Page 7 – Streets Condition 8 CONDITION MODIFICATION ● Twenty-foot (20’) concrete alleys with centerline drainage are noted and/or depicted on page 18 of the application narrative, on preliminary plat sheet PP4.6, and in PP/PUD Exhibit H. That standard is the same as in Brighton’s Arbor project, and in all other alley-loaded projects within the Treasure Valley. The 20-foot alley width also conforms to the dimensional requirements of Fire Code Section 503.2.1. ◘ As allowed through the PUD process and by Fire Department approval, twenty-foot wide concrete alleys are requested throughout the project—with the exception of the alley in Block 10 (Lot 13). Because the lots on the west side of that alley do not have street frontage, a Fire Department requirement specific to that situation will be incorporated into the updated preliminary plat. Item 5: Page 12 – Plat Condition 1 CLARIFICATION ● Even though this item was discussed with staff, its application and impact reamins unclear and will require further discussion clarification through the development process. Item 6: Page 15 – “Lower Five” Rights-of-Way Condition 3 CONDITION MODIFICATION ● The requested Joplin Road alignment through the middle of the Lower Five subarea is not feasible. It conflicts directly with the SunRoc rail car siding depicted of the following page. Midland 20-26 / Aviary – February 26, 2024 Page 4 ● The conflict between SunRoc’s industrial operation and unimpeded east/west traffic flow is obvious. Recognizing that inevitability in its own site planning, Brighton worked with SunRoc and City staff to find an alternative for a collector north of Highway 20-26—in addition to Lincoln Road further to the north—to avoid an adverse impact on SunRoc’s operation. ◘ Thus, the condition should be modified to reflect the noted alternative, leaving the matter open for further discussion when detailed Lower Five development is proposed—or it should be deleted altogether. CONCLUSION The Commission’s consideration of the foregoing is appreciated; particularly of the five proposed (red-highlighted) conditions modifications. Approval of those proposed modifications is respectfully requested.