HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to Staff ReportPage 1 of 2
Machelle Hill
From: Mokwa, Tim [TMokwa@toengrco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:04 PM
To: grrent@meridiancity.org; Machelle Hill; Bill Parsons
Cc: Davejdean@aol.com; LID8910@aol.com
NOV t °~ 2007
Subject: Three Corners PP-07-021 AZ-07-017 ALT-07-015 (~it~~ Of Me-:ridirzz;
City Clerk Of1`irt
Bill - I do have a couple of items/comments in regards to the staff report we received this afternoon (for
Thursday Nights meeting):
1.) Under Condition of Approval 1.1.2, First Bullet Item, 4th arrow - We request that the third line state
"...with barbecue, en feature on Lot 1, Block S and entry feature.... " I realize the architectural concept
plan identified a "water" feature, and ultimately that might be the case, however that was a conceptual
plan and we don't want to be tied to only a "water feature" if we come up wJ a better alternative during
final design.
2.) Under Condition of Approval 1.2.5, Third Bullet Item, We object to increasing the center median
islands to 10-feet. The purpose of the alternative compliance, is to provide an alternative to the required
10-buffer between the C-C property and the roadway, while also providing additional buffer between the
C-C area and the R-8 area. Please note we are providing a 6-foot planter strip on both sides of the road,
between the curb and sidewalk; a 10-foot common area landscape buffer along the south side of the road
(behind the sidewalk) and the proposed 9-foot island area, for a total of 31-feet of landscaping area
between the C-C area and the adjacent residential. We feel the 9-foot median, the planter strips between
the curbs and sidewalks and the 10-foot common area lot between the R-8 Lots and the new street more
then compensate for this alternative compliance request. Adding an additional 1-foot would require us to
widen the overall ROW, thereby reducing the adjacent lot areas. 8-Feet is generally considered the
minimum for a street tree, and we went one-foot over that. If this condition remains, we will most likely
take a foot or two out of the common area lot south of the main road to compensate for the lost lot area.
3.) Under Condition of Approval 2.7 - We request that this condition be removed in it's entirety or
modified to create the conditions under which the barn could remain. This barn is an accessory to the
Dean's existing home, although it is on the adjacent property that is the subject of the subdivision
application. It has been their intent all along, to retain this. We could create a common area lot or a lot
with no new additional building allowed, until the barn is removed. Aren't these conditions that could be
addressed in the Development Agreement?
Thanks, and I will call you tomorrow to discuss.
Tim Mokwa,
Project Manager
Toothman-Orton Engineering Company
9777 Chinden Blvd., Boise ID 83714
ph. (208)323-2288
fax. (208)323-2399
tmokwa~a,toenQrco. com
This message is confidential, engineer-client/work product protected, and is intended only for use by the
intended recipient. Any other use is expressly prohibited and any violation will result in prosecution to
the fullest extent of the law. If you receive this message by mistake please destroy it immediately.
Thank you.
11/14/2007