CC - Applicant's Responses to Council Questions
Charlene Way
From:Alan Tiefenbach
Sent:Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:26 AM
To:Adrienne Weatherly; Charlene Way; Chris Johnson
Subject:FW: Wells ST AL-MC & 40x100 Lots - feedback responses
Attachments:21 09 14 Continued CC Hearing Resonses.pdf
Wells / Andorra applicant response
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
From: Jamie Koenig <jamie@babcockdesign.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:24 AM
To: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Brent Thompson <brent@reoxygen.com>; Van Elg <velg@jub.com>;
Keith Morse <kmorse@jub.com>; TJ Winger <tj@babcockdesign.com>
Subject: Wells ST AL-MC & 40x100 Lots - feedback responses
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Alan,
Please see attached. I assume we’ll have an opportunity to present our responses. Just wanted you to be in the loop.
Thanks for your help.
JAMIE KOENIG AIA / PROJECT MANAGER
jamie@babcockdesign.com / 208.991.8171
Babcock Design
208.424.7675
800 W Main Street Ste. 940
Boise, ID 83702
www.babcockdesign.com
1
City Council feedback item number 1.
Committing to a 55+age-restricted community by reducing the footprint of the homes, deed restricting
the homes, and/or limiting the houses to one story.
Attracting an older population of homeowners:
1. Our small lot size and limited backyard area would be unattractive to younger families with
children, trampolines, and swings etc.
2. We are providing quality homes of elevated design, in a price range of$550,000 to$650,000
which will be financially unfeasible for most young families,thereby attracting an older more
established population. This is well above the recently announced $530,500 median home
prices in Ada County.
3. Most homes will have master bedrooms on the main level with additional bedrooms upstairs
which could be used as a den, home office, craft room, and for visiting children and
grandchildren.
4. Lawn and landscaping will be maintained for the homeowners, making this an attractive
community for an older population.
5. Gated communities are attractive to senior citizens as they seek security and peace.
6. The average home size shown in the concept plan is 2,003 s.f. This is a bit larger than similar
55+ Brighton products yet smaller than some of the Ashbrook and Englefield Green products,
some of which have large upper-level bonus rooms.
If the homes are designed to be too small, they will be more affordable to a broader age group,
particularly first-time buyers, and small families. Smaller homes with lower price points could
also impact adjacent home values. The price range of our product is above the median home
prices in Ada County.
7. We feel limiting the homes along the west property line to single story and reducing the size of
the footprints shown is unrealistic and would have a substantial negative impact from a real
estate perspective. Given our desire to have a product that is attractive to an older market,
those limitations would work contrary to our goals. Requiring smaller footprints may encourage
some 55+ buyers, but our proposed square footage is well within the standard range of many
55+communities across the valley.
8. Being 55+should not be assumed to be a physical constraint. Most are very ambulatory and
simply prefer that the "most used" areas be located on the main floor. The second floor is a
great option for home or second offices, and privacy for guests.The homes are not laid out to
accommodate the traditional activity or storage needs of a noisy and busy family.
9. Given the willingness and effort to provide revisions and concessions throughout the process,
we feel that deed restrictions on the properties are unnecessary.
City Council feedback item number 2.
Providing larger rear setbacks to the existing properties in the Snorting Bull Subdivision (Woodbridge)to
the west.
Proximity to,and interface with,Woodbridge neighborhood:
1. We agree to a stipulation in the Development Agreement stating that we are providing a 17'
rear yard setback along west property line which is an increase beyond the required 12' per TN-
R zoning. The distances from the property fence to the rear of the homes will now randomly
modulate be between 17' and 27' from the rear property line. This is an additional 5' greater
than the previous version.
2. We also agree to a stipulation in the Development Agreement stating that the second story
portion of the homes along the west property line shall be no closer than 27'from the rear
property line.
3. We are providing 5' side yard setbacks along the west property line which is an increase beyond
the required 3' per TN-R zoning.
4. Roof height at peak of the single-story portions is estimated at 16.5'. Roof height at peak of
two-story portions is estimated at 25.5', both of which are less than the 50' peak allowed per
TN-R zoning.
5. We agree to a stipulation in the Development Agreement stating that we require the general
contractor to provide Class II trees, selected from a tree list, at the rear yards of the homes
along the west property line. These will be larger attractive trees that will limit the view from
property to property as shown in the Landscape package.
City Council feedback item number 3.
Removing the access from E. Magic View Drive by providing another access to S. Wells Street.
Addressing traffic and parking concerns along Magic View:
1. We are removing the north gated entry along Magic View and relocating it along Wells
Street. This will eliminate traffic from crossing over Magic View upon entry to the project and
will lessen the temptation to turn left upon exiting the project. Exiting onto Wells Street will
increase the likelihood of traffic continuing to the north and east.
2. We are willing to pay ACHD to install no-parking signs on our side of Magic View and Wells
Street along our property frontage, which we believe could potentially help eliminate the
parking issue along our side of both Magic View and Wells Street. However,ACHD has recently
indicated that they are not supportive of this option.
3. We are providing all homes with 2 stall garages and 2 stall driveways which will eliminate any
visitors from parking along Magic View and Wells Street.
4. We have increased the total parking stalls at the north properties from 263 to 274 which is
greater than the required 253. This will aid in preventing vehicles from parking along Magic
View and Wells Street.
5. We agree to a stipulation in the Development Agreement to provide signs at the bulb-out visitor
stalls, restricting the time allowed to park in those stalls thereby removing the possibility of
having extra cars parked at those locations long term.
6. The following is a comparison of our proposed development on the north residential parcels
with a commercial healthcare type of development and the associated required parking:
a. Current single-family homes.
i. 122,200 s.f. of building area.
ii. 61 units.
iii. 253 stalls.
b. Healthcare/Office.
i. 122,200 s.f. of building area.
ii. Although Meridian allows 1 stall per 500 s.f. of building area, we typically see 1
stall per 250 or 200 s.f. of building area.
iii. 1 stall per 250 s.f.
1. 122,200/250=489 required stalls.
2. Resulting in a 193% increase in required parking.
iv. 1 stall per 200 s.f.
1. 122,200/200=611 required stalls.
2. Resulting in a 242% increase in required parking.
v. Commercial parking will almost certainly result in a higher average trips per day.
vi. Commercial development would likely find access on Magic View to be
essential.
vii. A commercial use structure will seem taller, larger, and more massive, and it will
have many more 2nd story windows. Since privacy is a concern,this could have a
significant impact on the Woodbridge neighbors.
viii. The required parking lot lighting would have a significant impact on the view
from Woodbridge of the surrounding sky.
City Council feedback item number 4.
Moving the pool to a location further away from the homes.
Addressing miscellaneous concerns and comments:
1. We are moving the pool to the new locations as shown thereby providing more distance
between the pool and the three homes to the south.
2. We are providing trees and landscaping between the pool and the homes to the south.
3. The revisions shown result in a total reduction in qualifying open space from 21.5%down to
20.6%. This is still more than twice the required 10%.
4. We have been asked about the possibility of restricting west facing windows along the west
property line. Although providing smaller high windows facing west is an option, we feel it
would be detrimental and too restrictive to limit the views to the north and south. Having the
option of seeing the skyline or your own back yard may be too important to many prospective
buyers. The visual appeal of the homes and security are also a consideration. It would be rare
to have a neighborhood with a restricted view easement and we feel it would set a bad
precedence in the Meridian.