Loading...
PZ - Applicant Response to Staff Report - 5/19 4824 W. FAIRVIEW AVENUE BOISE, IDAHO 83706 (208) 336-5355 May 18, 2016 Members of Meridian City Planning & Zoning Commission City of Meridian - Planning and Zoning Department 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Verado Subdivision - H-2016-0047 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: We are respectfully requesting approval consideration of the Verado Subdivision application and staff report with the following modifications. The project submitted is a 122 home community located on Ustick Road between Locust Grove and Eagle Roads. We have worked diligently with city staff as well as the Ada County Highway District and we agree with all of the conditions for approval with the exception of: - Item 1: Site Specific Condition Item 1.1.2. c.3. – access to the .8 acre county outparcel Request modification of the condition to match our revised plat dated 5/17/16. (Please see Attachment A for resolution) - Item 2: Site Specific Conditions Item 1.1.3 2 – Split the proposed master planned park Request to delete Conditions Item 1.1.3 2 (Please see Attachment B for resolution) We are in agreement with the City’s Condition of approval except for the two items noted above. I thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this packet to further clarify the outstanding issues. Sincerely, DEVCO LLC Jim D. Conger Member JDC:ml Verado Subdivision – Attachment A ITEM 1: ACCESS TO THE .8 ACRE ADA COUNTY OUT PARCEL ● Staff Condition: Exhibit B – 1.1 Site Specific Conditions Item 1.1.2. c.3. – applicant shall shift N. Sumner Park Ave so that it is contiguous with the the existing 1 acre outparcel located in the northwest corner of the proposed development. • Developer Request: Change the condition of approval to state: Site Specific Conditions Item 1.1.2. c.3. – applicant shall shift N. Sumner Park Avenue as shown on the revised preliminary plat dated 5/17/2016. • Developer Action: We have modified our plat and shifted the proposed ROW as far as we could before becoming detrimental to the project. We have provided for the 0.8 acre Ada County outparcel to have a dedicated access easement to allow for a common lot that would accommodate 6 residential houses. If this property redevelops, the outparcel will be annexed into the city and would be a great addition to the neighborhood. But at this point the Ada County neighbor is not very desirable. • Reason for Developer Request: As the Developer, we require a sufficient landscape buffer for our residents against the county outparcel as it is in a condition that is not only unsightly but unsafe for small children. Exhibits associated with Attachment A ƒ Outparcel Easement Slide ƒ Revised Preliminary Plat dated 5/17/16 ƒ Photos of County Outparcel Attachment A – Page 1 of 3 0.8 County Outparcel Photos of County Outparcel County Outparcel Easement Slide Attachment A – Page 2 of 3 Attachment A – Page 3 of 3 Modified Preliminary Plat Dated 5/17/16 Verado Subdivision – Attachment B ITEM 2: ADDED PARK LOCATION AND AMENITY ● Staff Condition: Exhibit B – 1.1 Site Specific Conditions Item 1.1.3 2 – Lot 32 Block 4 shall be converted to an open space lot and developed with a qualifying amenity. • Developer Request: Delete condition Item 1.1.3 2 • Support for Developer Request: We have proposed the following open space and community amenities that meet or exceed City code requirements: o Greater than 10.5% open space (code requires 10%) o Three (3) Amenities (code requires 1) o Regional Pathway (required by code) City staff is proposing that we add an additional neighborhood park that would create a “Split Park” concept. This second park would be located within 150-feet of our master planned park that was submitted with three amenities to include a Climbing Dome, Play Structure, and a concrete riding path around the turfed play area. This fenced park is designed to be used effectively and will be the focal point of this neighborhood. We have agreed with staff condition Item 1.1.3 1and relocated the proposed micro path to better align with our master planned park. The City staff demand of this additional “split park” will force us to allocate funds to additional landscaping which will decrease the amount of park equipment that we will be able to provide. As well as cause us to locate one of our proposed amenities into the newly requested “split park”. This will force our homeowners to make a choice of either tending to their 3 year old climbing on the play structure, or watching their ten year old that is at the other “split park” on the climbing dome; this would be an unsafe situation. This staff requested “split park” concept completely bisects our spectacular park that is intended to be the centralized gathering location. Exhibits associated with Attachment B ƒ Exhibit showing the Community Park plan vs. the Split Park Location ƒ Community Park Photo/Rendering Attachment B – Page 1 of 2 Community Park & Split Park Location (150’ apart) Attachment B – Page 2 of 2