Applicant Response to Staff ReportPage 1 of 2
Machelle Hill
From: Bill Parsons
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:51 PM
To: Machelle Hill; Jacy Jones; Jaycee Holman
Subject: FW: Kingsbridge Response to Staff Report
Attachments: Kingsbridge Fire Access.pdf
Applicant's comments to the staff report.
Thanks,
Bill
From: Scott Noriyuki [mailto:scott@northsidemgt.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:17 PM
To: Bill Parsons
Subject: Kingsbridge Response to Staff Report
Bill -
First, I want to thank you for efforts as relates to the Kingsbridge project and look forward to working with
you and the City. The following is a list of comments regarding the Staff Report in preparation for tonight's
Hearing.
Development Agreement Modification (Staff Analysis & Condition 1. Planning, 1.1.8): We are in agreement
with Staff that the DA should be modified. During this process and prior to City Council Hearing we would also
like the opportunity to discuss removing the conditioned 25' rear setback on the southern boundary line of the
property with the original, perimeter property owner's associated with the Settlement Agreement. We feel that this
condition was intended for property owners along the north and east. Along the southern property line lies the 10
mile feeder canal and the associated 60' easement, as well as the 30' rear setbacks established for residence on the
south side and a IS' standard set back within Kingsbridge. This area equates to 105' separation between homes.
We feel that this is more than adequate.
Building Elevations (Staff Analysis & Condition 1. Planning 1.1.8): We are pleased to submit additional single
story elevations as relates to the original 6 lots market for single story. Please see the attached files.
Micro-Pathways/Common Areas(Condition 1. Planning, 1.1.4): Staff"s proposed pathway along the eastern
boundary. We feel that the intent of this common lot in addition to the three large lots was creation of a buffer for
the benefit of existing property owners involved with the Settlement Agreement. Installation of this pathway would
compromise that intent. Further, this pathway would only move pedestrian traffic to the east 140+/- feet while
adding substantial development cost and long term HOA maintenance costs. We feel that the proposed on street
pathway within this portion of the project is acceptable.
Ditches, Laterals, and Canals (Condition 1. Planning, 1.1.6): We agree that the 10 Mile Feeder Canal shall
remain open and will request a council waiver prior City Council Hearing.
10' Wide Pathway along 10 Mile Feeder Canal (Condition 1. Planning, 1.1.4): We must object to the proposed
conditions regarding multi-use pathways through this project. As you know, Kingsbridge 2 & 3 seeks re-approval
of an expired area of the previously-approved Kingsbridge project. The multi-use pathway was proposed and
approved with the original Kingsbridge development along the south side of the Ten Mile Feeder. This previous
approval reviewed the location for the pathway, and found it to be appropriate. In line with that approval, the
pathway has been constructed on the south side of the Feeder. As recommended by Staff's Conditions of Approval,
11/18/2010
Page 2 of 2
the City now desires to reverse their previous approval and re-locate the pathway along the north side of the
Feeder. Because it is now impossible to change the alignment of the pathway through Phase 1, Staff's conditions
would result in a discontinuous pathway and defeat the larger aims of the Master Pathways Network Plan.
Further, it is already clear (as was learned with Phase 1 of Kingsbridge) that the irrigation company will NOT
allow construction of the pathway within their easement, as would be necessary to provide the pathway on the
north side of the canal. While the condition anticipates this occurring, the alternative requirement of creating an
"on street" route is also plagued by failing to create a usable and continuous pathway system. The only way to
achieve the pathway plan 's larger vision is to maintain the pathway route approved with Kingsbridge 1 on the
south side of the Feeder, and remove these conflicting conditions from the current application.
Secondary Access (Condition 3. Fire, 3.6): We would like to address the Fire Department condition that a
secondary emergency access be provided prior to issuance of the 51st building permit. With 72 buildable lots
within the entire project, the Slst building permit will be requested within Phase 3 of the project. At this point, the
entire subdivision will have been constructed and all emergency accesses developed.
As shown on the attached sketch "Kingsbridge Fire Access.pdf", Ihave noted that the overall diagonal dimension
of the project is 1,850 ft. At the beginning of Phase 3 construction, the access points most separated from one
another will be approximately 800 ft apart, and provide ingress and egress to the project via two entirely separate
routes to Eagle Rd. By design, the project already provides excellent emergency access, and would appreciate the
Fire Department's confirmation that this condition has been satisfied.
We are in agreement with all other conditions and would like to once again thank you.
Scott Noriyuki
(208) 230-1202
NORTHStD~
NfAVAGEMEkVT
11/18/2010