Applicant Response to Staff Report / Recs 12/28~~
NQRTH5IDE
MANAGEMENT
December 27, 2010
City of Meridian, Planning & Zoning Department
Attn: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner
33 E. Broadway Ave, Suite 210
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: PP-10-007-Kingsbridge, Staff Report
Bill,
I am in receipt of City Staff Report, PP-10-007-Kingsbridge with a City Council Hearing date of
December 28, 2010. As representative and on behalf of Boise Hunter Homes I want to thank the City
and Staff for efforts as relates to this project. We are truly excited to bring a project of such quality to
Meridian.
First, I would like to touch on Staff's "key issue(s) of Discussion by Commission;
is "Common open space and amenities planned for the subdivision"
- The current design reflects consistent quantities as the original design and exceeds
minimum requirements. We have consolidated the greater amount of random open
space into one predominate park that is usable throughout the year as well as
providing recreation opportunities to a greater diversity homeowners.
ii: "The design of the new plat versus the previous design of the old plat"
- The original design was approved under R-3 zoning which no longer exists within the
City of Meridian and therefor is not approvable. We conducted two (2) pre
application meetings with Staff to discuss these options prior to re-design. The
current design conforms to Code, has received recommendation for approval and
better organizes the land, providing optimum building lots and exceptional open
space opportunities.
iii: "Parking for the neighborhood park"
- There is currently no parking shown on the design. Following comments at the
Planning and Zoning Hearing we also agree that this should be provided. We have
discussed options with ACHD and found that this is acceptable with them. We plan
to include parking.
iv: '?raffic exiting through Dartmoor Subdivision"
- The existing traffic study and ACHD indicate that the current design is within existing
and proposed roadway capacity thresholds and no further conditions are warranted,
however, we propose to install speed bumps and an island within E. Darlington Way
as a result of neighboring concerns that this will impact them. See attachment of
proposed island.
v: "Requirements of the Settlement Agreement and CCR's"
- We have met with several of the "original parameter lot owners" who were involved
with the Settlement Agreement and are contiguous to Phase II and III's property
boundary. We have committed to them that we will honor the intent of the
Settlement Agreement. We have summated our correspondence and commitments
between the two parties to the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Staff.
vi: "Off-site improvements and if they could be required with the subject plat application"
- Our stance is that conditions placed on our application as relates to property
outside of our ownership and control is prohibitive.
vii: "Citizen involvement in the new plat design"
- Following design development of the current design and incompliance with Code,
we met (twice) with the original perimeter property owners to review and discuss
the intent and consistency of the Settlement Agreement. It was agreed that our
current design does in fact meet these goals. We have also held a series (Four) of
meetings with the Phase I Kingsbridge homeowners. Key discussions have centered
around the HOA & CCRs which will be discussed later in this letter. Additional
discussions included traffic, amenities, open space and general lot layout. Currently,
we have received (email/verbal) support of the design and goals by their appointed
representatives.
viii: "Secondary access to the site"
- This has been provided and approved by the Fire Department. See condition
response B., 3.6.
ix: "Dimensional standard of the R-3 zoning district"
- N/A considering this designation no long exists with the City of Meridian.
- Current design conforms 100% with the R-2 zoning.
In regard to the Staff Report, Exhibit B, I am happy to provide the following comments, commitments,
and clarifications prior to tomorrow night's Hearing.
B., 1.1.1 Agreed
B., 1.1.2 Agreed
6.,1.1.3 Agreed with added comments to clarify our and ACHD's contemplation:
The proposed collector configuration is "continuous", in that it is not interrupted by any non-
collector roadway. It does have a "jog", which provides for traffic calming and speed control at
the high-pedestrian activity area near the common area park. ACHD was supportive of this
design, and we think it's actually better community design than a further extension of the
parkway-style collector that would encourage higher speeds through the residential
neighborhood.
The function of a collector road is to deliver traffic from local streets to the arterial street
network. With Ada County's typical arterial roadway network on a 1-mile grid, and collectors (or
mid-mile arterials) at the %:-mile point -there is an area equidistant from all of the surrounding
arterials in the center of each one-mile square. The east boundary of Kingsbridge is in this
situation. At these points, the function of collector roadways is diminished, because there are
less lots being served than nearer the arterial. The parkway-style collector used in Kingsbridge 1
is suitable for that area because it is nearer the arterial roadway at Eagle Rd, but toward the
center of the mile, I believe that transitioning away from the parkway-style is appropriate.
The FHWA's published "Functional Street Classification Guidelines" (available here:
http://www.fhwa.dot.~ov/planning/fcsec2 1.htm) discusses a situation schematically identical
to the Kingsbridge area. I am attaching Figure II-3 from this document, which presents an
example of a typical urban street network, showing locations of the arterials, collectors and local
streets. You'll notice that the example shows two things: the collectors are intentionally not
"continuous" in the fashion the City desires, and they are discontinuous where surrounding a
park or other community-amenity area.
Figure II-3
Legend
~ Arterial street ~~~ Collector street
_____ Commercial „w,,,,;,a Public
Schematic of a Portion
of an
Urban Street Network
B., 1.1.4 We agree to construct street buffers along N. Kingsbridge Drive as proposed and in
accord with UDC 11-3A-17/11-3D-7C.
We agree to construct common lot 63 as proposed. We also agree to construct Lot 1,
Block 11 prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the Subdivision.
We agree to construct a 5 foot pathway within eastern common lot (lot 28) and
landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3A-8/11-36-12. It is anticipated that this lot will need
to be widened beyond an existing Irrigation Easement to accommodate tree plantings.
This widening to acceptable.
Regarding construction of the 10-foot wide pathway along the north side of the Ten
Mile Feeder Canal; I, the Applicant, City Staff, City Parks Department and Boise Board of
Project Control have had several discussions if this should be a condition and whether or
not it would be allowed within the existing Irrigation Dist. Easement. Currently, the
Boise Board of Project Control has indicated (several times) that they will not allow
construction of a pathway and/or use of the existing access road on the north side of
the 10 Mile Feeder for pedestrian use. Further, Staff and the Parks Department have
agreed that the original Kingsbridge approval contemplated the pathway would be
extended along the south side of the 10 Mile Feeder at such time those properties
developed. This is consistent with the existing location and planning of pathway
currently in-place.
B., 1.1.5 Agreed. We anticipate a blend of wrought iron and vinyl fencing consistent with Phase I.
B., 1.1.6 Please consider this letter as formal request to Council for waiver of tiling the 10 Mile
Feeder. We are in agreement to the all other irrigation ditches and laterals.
B., 1.1.7 through B., 2.1 Agreed
B., 2.2 Agreed. Per conversations with Meridian Public Works, it is agreed and understood that
coordination and locations are contingent upon Boise Board of Project Control.
B., 2.3 through B., 2.7 Agreed
B., 2.8 Agreed -see response to condition B., 1.1.6.
B., 2.9 through B., 3.5 Agreed
B., 3.6 This condition has been meet via emergency access located within the S. Stockenham
Ct. cold-e-sac which connects to an existing Irrigation access road on the north side of
the 10 Mile Feeder. We have written approval by the Fire Department via email that this
is acceptable.
B., 3.7 through B., 7.2.13 Agreed
Lastly, I would like to discuss the Kingsbridge HOA as relates to the current Declarent, existing
homeowners and Boise Hunter Homes. During the course of design and application we have gotten to
know the Phase I owners and unfortunately several issues they currently have as an HOA. These
issues include inadequate funds to maintain common lots, amenities and Pressurized Irrigation Pump
Station. Additional concerns include the lack of leadership and management from a Board of Directors
standpoint. During the course of meetings the following items have been identified as key
commitments by Boise Hunter Homes.
- Execute Pressurized Irrigation Contract with Napoli to share operation costs.
- Ensure all common lots and amenities are covered by General Liability Insurance.
- Extend/enhance the existing swimming pool deck. These items may include
concrete, furniture/seating, covering, BBQ pit. Boise Hunter Homes has committed
up to $20,000.
- Upon project entitlement and close of escrow, commit to pay HOA financial
deficiencies as of Nov. 18`h 2010. +/-$9,000. These funds will ensure proper
winterization of sprinklers and amenities as well as pay past due billings.
- Upon entitlement and close of escrow, Boise Hunter Homes will immediately take
over the entire Kingsbridge Subdivision HOA as Board of Directors.
o Ensures project quality remains now and into the future.
- HOA will be professionally managed. All financials, contracts and operations will be
transparent and viewable by homeowners.
- Boise Hunter Homes has requested existing Phase I homeowners appoint an
advisory board and meet monthly.
- Boise Hunter Homes will turn over HOA to homeowners at 75-85% of project
completion.
- CCRs will be modified to allow homeowners (at such time HOA is turned over to
them) the rights and abilities to construct and/or improve subdivision amenities.
Once again I would like to thank the City and Staff for their help and efforts as well pursue project
approval and look forward to creating a great development.
Sincerely,
Scott Noriyuki