Applicant Response to Staff ReportHearing Date: June 20, 2013
To: Bill Parsons, Planning and Zoning City of Meridian
From: Dave Yorgason, applicant's representative
Date: June 19, 2013
Subject: AZ-13-006 and PP-13-010-Jack's Place
We have received the staff report for Jack's Place subdivision. After reviewing the staff report, we have
identified 2 items of concern that need to be addressed. The items pertain to 1) cross access to the
southern parcel and 2) Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) easement for the Kennedy Lateral
that runs through this site. As these items are referenced more than once in the staff report, several
conditions of approval are affected accordingly. The following are comments and suggested changes for
each of these conditions of approval as stated in Exhibit B in the staff report.
Plannine Department -Development Agreement
1.1.1.D. - We request that the requirement for cross-access/ingress-egress through Lot 10 Block 1 be
removed. Requirement for cross-access between lots 11 and 12 should remain.
• Reasoning:
1) There are significant topography challenges along the southern boundary of the site
2) If buildable, the access would take out too much of the building pad and parking away
from Lot 10 which would make the lot very difficult to build or sell to the market.
3) The site to the south already has access in several locations
With these reasons, requiring cross access through Lot 10 is burdensome to the development,
unnecessary and probably unfeasible to build.
We request changing this condition as follows:
iFDC~9 C77Al19 71 +~.,,, ,.,~ ~ „+ , ~ D~....L , :., ,,.,~ ...;~~ ~ ~~~ „ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.,.«ti~.~ eCross access
shall be granted between lots 11 and 12, Block 1 as proposed. A recorded copy of said
easement shall be submitted with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the
site or a note added to the face of the plat that references the recorded cross access agreement.
1.1.1.E - We request that the Common Lot 2 Block 1 not be required to have grass and shrubs for the
entire lot, but allow for the access area that will be required by NMID to be gravel. The remaining
portion can be landscaped with lawn and mix of shrubs or ground cover as approved by NMID. We also
request there not be an asphalt pathway in Common Lot 2 Block 1.
• Reasoning:
1) Common Lot 2 Block 1 will be required to preserve vehicle access to the main irrigation
boxes and head gates for NMID. Grass, shrubs and sprinklers should not be within
gravel access area that is traveled daily.
2) NMID does not want a pedestrian pathway along the south of lots. Pathway in Lot 2
Block 1 will serve no function or purpose.
We request changing the condition as follows:
• The applicant shall provide a minimum of 16,748 open space for the residential portion of the
development as proposed. Common Lot 3 Block 2 and Common Lot 2 Block 1, excludina the
gravel access road within said common lots, shall be landscaped with lawn and a mix of shrubs
and or other vegetative ground cover.
. The applicant's landscape architect shall submit a plat materials list to NMID
for review and approval. The approved list shall be included ion the revised landscape plan.
1.1.1.E -This condition is associated with the previous condition (1.1.1.E) as it pertains to the easement
area for NMID. We request this condition be deleted entirely.
• Reasoning:
1) This development is less than 5 acres and no common area or amenities are required for
a small site according to the code.
2) Requiring a common lot would be very burdensome as it could take out 2 buildable lots
to meet the minimum 5,000 square footage requirements. This small development
cannot afford to lose 1 or 2 lots. Losing 10 percent of buildable lots (2 of 20 lots) is a
significant hardship.
3) Requiring a common lot affects the rear setback on the lots and will force some lots to
have reduced building envelopes and potentially even smaller homes than proposed.
4) NMID does not want landscaping or a pedestrian pathway in this access easement area
as this will interfere with their daily maintenance routine and daily truck traveling along
this lateral.
5) Requiring a pathway along the south of Lot 10 Block 1 may not be possible to comply
with ADA laws due to topography challenges. The slope is approximately 10 percent.
Having a steep slope pathway headed toward Meridian Road (HWY 69) is unsafe for kids
on bikes or skate boards.
• Solution: Replace this condition with "a requirement to have language on the plat and in the
CC&Rs stating the maintenance responsibilities within the NMID easement. The language on the
plat and in the CC&Rs shall be approved by the City attorney". This language shall be similar to
the following: "The access area for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District (NMID), as depicted on
the plat, located along the south of Lots 3-9 Block 1 shall be maintained by the Jack's Place HOA.
The remaining portion of the NMID easement between the access area and the lot owner's home
to be maintained by the lot owner."
1) Having an easement on a homeowner's lot that grants access and maintenance
responsibilities to an HOA has been used before and works when done correctly. One
example that works successfully today is in the Castlebury West subdivision where the
landscape berm frontage on Chinden is in an easement in homeowner's lot. It can work
here, too.
2) Allowing the access area to be in an easement and not a common lot will allow us to not
lose 1 or 2 lots
3) The lots, as proposed, are all buildable.
1.2 Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.2.1 -
• (15t bullet) - To be consistent with the requested changes above in 1.1.1.D, we request the
following change regarding cross access to the south (Mussel) Corner) property
o "With the final platting of the office lots include a note of the face of the plat that
references the recorded cross access agreement. '"~^~° ~~~°" '""" "° ^~°~•`''°~' +° +"°
,Cross access shall
be granted between lots 11 and 12, Block 1 as proposed."
• (2"d bullet) - To be consistent with requested changes above in 1.1.1.F, we request the following
changes relating to prior to signature of final plat.....
o b. If the applicant cannot obtain said license agreement, or can only obtain a license
agreement to encroach into a portion of the easement, the plat shall be revised to
include any easement area, without a signed license agreement, within a common ~
area easement to be ~ maintained by the HOA. This common ~ area
easement (if required) shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide '
. All lots must comply with the R-8 dimensional standards.
1.2.3 (5th bullet) - To be consistent with 1.1.1.E, we request this change regarding landscape plan
• Common Lot 3 Block 2 and Common Lot 2 Block 1, excluding the portion of gravel access road
within said common lots, shall be landscaped with lawn and a mix of shrubs and or other
vegetative ground cover.
a~y: The applicant's landscape architect shall submit a plat materials list to NMID for
review and approval. The approved list shall be included on the revised landscape plan.
• Note: If City still desires pathway in Lot 3 Block 2, we might be able to accommodate this.
1.2.3 (7th bullet) - To be consistent with 1.1.1.E above, we request this be deleted
• See 1.1.1.E above