Applicant Response to Staff Report PZMachelle Hill
From: Bill Parsons
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 1:21 PM
To: Machelle Hill
Subject: FW: Supplement to Jump Creek Response to Staff Report
Attachments: Jump Creek verses Oaks Phasing and Need for Collector Connection.pdf
Machelle,
This email represents the applicant's response to the Jump Creek staff report
"'hanks,
Bill Parsons, AICP
Associate City Planner
Community Development Department
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
PHONE: (208) 884-5533
FAX: (208) 888-6854
bparsons@meridiancity.org
From: Scott Noriyuki [mailto:scott@northsidemgt.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 12:52 PM
To: Bill Parsons
Cc: 'Mindy Wallace'
Subject: Supplement to Jump Creek Response to Staff Report
Bill -
Please consider this email as a formal supplement to my Response to the Jump Creek Staff Report emailed to you on
10/01/14 and please include this correspondence in the Planning and Zoning Commission Packet. For ease I am
copying and pasting the original email below this supplement.
- In addition to our requested 222 lot cap prior to construction of the Collector, we will convey all R.O.W. and Utility
Easements for the Collector within Phase I of the project. This further ensures that
our request is reasonable and fair. This should more than satisfy the City of Meridian, ACHD and all adjacent Land
Owners regarding any concern for future access.
- In addition to our request to not construct additional sidewalks from the north side of phase 1 to the south side of the
Collector within phase I timelines, we do commit to complete this scope within
phase II of the project. This from a practical standpoint, should more than satisfy the City of Meridian, ACHD, adjacent
Land Owners and most importantly any Safety related concerns.
Thank you.
- - 10/01/14 Email as follows - -
Good morning Bill -
Please consider this email as formal response to the Jump Creek Subdivision City of Meridian Staff Report ahead of
the continued P&Z Commission Hearing.
I appreciate your efforts to accommodate a meeting with Staff to discuss the Off -Site 12" water main condition. This
meeting is no longer requested. After further review I am in agreement with this condition and the understanding that
this is also a condition for the Oaks Phase I & 2 project Final Plats. I do understand that there may be "late comer Fees"
following Their installation or Ours in the event that they do not pursue City of Meridian signatures on their Final Plats.
This is fair and I agree with both the Jump Creek and Oaks Conditions of Approval.
All other conditions of approval are agreed to less the two (2) following items discussed.
Item #1 - Site specific condition 1.1.1 F and ACHD Staff Report Findings for Consideration #8 "Temporary Access".
We are struggling with the merit of the condition to build the Collector "Malta Drive" following the 122nd lot within the
proposed Jump Creek Project. We Do agree that this connection is important and needs to be built in a timely fashion
but pose the following thoughts or questions before this "condition" is ratified by Meridian and the ACHD Commission. It
is felt that the timing and lot count calculation is not fair or consistent with other projects recently approved by ACHD
and the City of Meridian.
• Is this a requirement born of Fire, Life, Safety or Health concerns?
• Is this a requirement born of Meridian Code?
• Is this a requirement born of typical ACHD Policy?
• Is this a requirement born of the Oak's TIS? (Traffic Study)
• Is this a requirement born of the Jump Creek TIS? (Traffic Study)
• Is this a condition that is consistent with other projects recently approved in this specific area and most
importantly the Oaks Project?
If one or multiple are required as listed above, please provide an explanation that assures us that all projects are vetted
and/or approved in the same manor.
My understanding is that the City of Meridian has expressed firm concerns that there may be a potential that we (Jump
Creek) would push the construction of the Collector to our Final Phase.
This is not true. See attached Phasing Plans for both Jump Creek and the Approved Oaks Subdivision. That said and in
consideration, I want to summarize the following thoughts:
Jump Creek proposes 222 lots prior to construction of the Collector.
o This Phase plan ensures (through Phase 1) that Fire, Life, Safety and Health requirements are met.
o Phase 1 ensures two (2) points of access.
o This Phase Plan provides double the access points verses lots compared with the Approved Oaks project
and was approved by ACHD and Meridian.
o This Phase Plan provides much needed Water Main Connection Loops to ensure Fire Flows for the Fire
Dept. for this specific project.
The Oaks project has been approved with 227 lots via a singular access point. Although a Collector, it remains a
singular point of access for 227 homes/cars/families.
o Jump Creek is proposing two (2) points of access within the first Phase.
o Jump Creek's two points of access are positive from a traffic as well as safety standpoint.
o The Oaks circulation will not expand to two (2) access points until their approved phase 7 or well over
250 lots.
• The Oaks project does not project connection to Jump Creek Collector until their 9'th phase or roughly 314 lots.
o A requirement to make us build an expensive Collector to a non use area for the foreseeable future at
the 122nd lot count is a Hardship.
Via the Jump Creek Attached Phasing Plan - we will actually provide the Oaks project much needed secondary
access at our third (3) and fourth (4) phases. They, the City and ACHD will realize very much needed connections
sooner through this plan rather than through the condition of the Collector. I also want to point out that these
connections will also provide needed waterline loops that add to Safety and fire flows.
We respectfully request that Meridian Staff consider all the facts and reconsider this "condition". We are equally
motivated to build out the entire project that includes the Collector but request a fair playing field and opportunities
provided by Policy, Law, Code and those Conditions afforded our Neighboring Development that you have supported.
have spoken with ACHD regarding this condition and understand that they could be supportive of modifying it to 222
lots prior to installation of the Collector.
Item #2 - Site specific condition of approval 1.1.1, C.
We also struggle with the merit of this condition considering existing land uses in this area and timelines for approved
developments. In short, this condition would require us to build a sidewalk within the first phase of the project to
Nowhere. The sidewalk does not continue a connection to any other sidewalks or recently improved
streets/developments or schools. In fact this requirement would hinder existing irrigation ditches needed to continue
active farming until such point this area redevelops. We respectfully request this condition be removed.
Thank you and I would be more than happy to meet with you anytime to further discuss.
Scott Noriyuki
(208) 230-1202
scott@northsidemgt.com
Y J
4th,
EM
O§
v
A�G 9�3S �� g� 6 • i 4
s � 9c+e� ;gt 9� H1ad
Cad
(IDI
Ila
o i.j,
�
� � �
I
�
Q
Cad
(IDI
ilK. -1 �Mh
Tf v ge norm 4 mr—n
00.0
1101MAJaMN MOO
08 N—NO maaam juaox mo mt
M0338
� I
-SX011MOS, ONISYM T1lMzIAO