HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ - Public Testimony by Bob Neilson on Revised App - 9/29September 29, 2015
City Clerk
Meridian City Hall, Suite 104
33 E Broadway
Meridian, ID 83642
RE: REVISED EASY JET SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (RZ 15-012, PP 15-016, CUP 15-017)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Easy Jet Subdivision. I am opposed to revised
application as it is proposed.
Elements of this revised application are not consistent with the key community value in the City of
Meridian's Comprehensive Plan to "enhance Meridian's quality of life for all current and future
residents". There are also conflicts with action item 3.05.02A (require neighborhood and commercial
areas to create a site design compatible with surroundings) and action item 3.05.02F (require new urban
density subdivisions which abut or are proximal with existing low density residential land uses to provide
landscape screening or transitional densities). These conflicts result from 3 -story buildings and the
proposed unit density (number of apartments), which will also cause parking and traffic issues.
Three-story multi -family buildings are out of scale with the surrounding residential properties. 88% of
the residential units within 300 feet of the proposed development are single story (49 of 56 residences).
The 3 -story buildings will be 39'4" high, which is almost five feet higher (4'9") than presented to
residents at the developer's neighborhood meeting. Residents were concerned that the 34'7" height
described at that meeting was out of scale with the neighborhood so making these buildings even higher
makes the scale issue even worse. (See site plan and legend on page 50 of the initial application, which
was the basis of the presentation at the developer's neighborhood meeting.)
The plan does not provide transitional density with the surrounding residential area. If one looks at the
Fields at Gramercy multi -family housing development as an example of transitional density, one finds
3 -story apartment buildings that are surrounded by 2 -story apartment buildings, which themselves are
surrounded by 2 -story single family homes before the development interfaces with the existing
residential area.
Scale is an issue not just with appearance, but also with property values. At the developer's
neighborhood meeting, a study finding that multi -family housing does not decrease neighborhood
property values was cited'. However, a more complete representation of the results of that study is
that neighborhood property values typically do not decrease, and may in some cases even increase,
when the multi -family housing is attractive in appearance and of a scale compatible with the
' Mark Obrinski and Debra Stein, "Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing', Report RR -07-14, Joint
Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, March 2007.
surrounding neighborhood. I suggest that 3 -story buildings are not a compatible in scale with a
residential area where the large majority of homes (88% of the dwelling units within 200') are single
storyhomes. Further it is ludicrous to believe that the value of the nearest homes will not be negatively
affected (the nearest home is a single story home which is approximately 40' from a proposed 3 -story
apartment building. Looking to the northwest, that homeowner will have to look up at a considerable
angle to see sky over the apartment building — see attached drawing.)
The revised application calls for one 2 -story and two 3 -story multi -family buildings with a total of 64
units on 4.25 acres, although from the site drawing it does not look like the area has changed from the
4.15 acres in the initial application. In any case, using an area of 4.25 acres results in a gross density of
15.1 DU/acre, which slightly exceeds the maximum density for the requested R-15 zoning. The
developer is using the total area of the development, 5.41 acres, to achieve a claimed gross density of
11.83 DU/acre. If using the total area is allowed under City Code, I would suggest that the proposed
density is inappropriate for this location and that the allowed number of dwelling units should not be
calculated including the land used for the two commercial buildings. The Comprehensive Plan for the
Mixed Use Community (MU -C) has a residential density guideline of 6 to 15 units per acre. Since the
developer is requesting R-15 zoning adjacent to a medium -low density (R-4) residential area, I think that
a dwelling unit density near the mid -point of the guideline range, say 10 units per acre on the 4.25 acres
(for a total of 43 units) would be more appropriate to obtain a scale compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. Alternately, approving R-8 instead and using the total development acreage would also
result in a total of 43 units at a density of 8 dwelling units per acre.
I understand that the developer's business plan is to sell each building (lot) to individual investors, but
requiring that they use the same property manager. This is a potential issue since when each building
has a separate owner, the individual owners may each have a different idea regarding maintenance of
their building with the potential mid- or long-term result being that some buildings are well maintained
and that others are not. This would affect the attractiveness of the development, albeit long after the
developer has gone.
The surrounding neighborhoods are also concerned that sufficient parking be provided for the multi-
family housing because if it is not, apartment dwellers will park on residential streets in Sutherland Farm
and Sutherland Downs. Easy Jet is posted as no parking, so any excess vehicles will park in the
surrounding residential areas. Ironically, Sutherland Downs CC&Rs require that residents park in their
garages and driveways; street parking is for visitors. So, if there is insufficient parking provided for the
multi -family housing, perhaps as a result of subleasing bedrooms, apartment dwellers will be parking on
residential streets where the residents themselves are not supposed to park.
There are also traffic concerns with the number of vehicles that will go in/out of the multi -family
housing and the commercial buildings. The only access/egress is from Easy Jet as a curb cut is not
permitted on Eagle Road due to the proximity of the signaled intersection at Eagle Road and Easy Jet.
The significant increase in traffic will create congestion issues on Easy Jet especially at the signaled
intersection. It will also result in a significant increase in traffic using Easy Jet and residential streets to
exit/enter on to/from Cloverdale and Victory. This will decrease the quality of life in the existing
residential areas.
So what does one do to make the proposed development more compatible with the existing residential
area? I propose the following:
(1) Require that all of the multi -family buildings be 2 -story with a maximum height of 29'4".
(2) Require a unit density for the multi -family housing in the mid-range of the guidelines for Mixed
Use -Community where the calculation does not include the land on which the commercial
buildings are located. This would result in about 43 dwelling units on the 4.25 acres occupied by
the multi -family housing. Alternately, approve R-8 zoning instead of the requested R-15 and
allow the entire development area to be included in the density calculation. This would also
result in about 43 dwelling units using the entire development acreage in the calculation.
(3) Require significantly more parking spaces than the code specifies and require a covenant in the
commercial unit lease/sales contracts to prohibit the businesses from posting customer parking
only signs.
(4) Prohibit subleasing of bedrooms and ensure that there is a mechanism to enforce it.
(5) Require a mechanism that ensures a high level of maintenance for all of the buildings.
Requiring these changes to the plan would significantly reduce adverse impacts to the surrounding
residential area, as well as provide an alternate housing opportunity for Meridian residents.
s truly,
(::
Robert M. Neilson, Jr.
3508 E Quin Drive, Meridian, ID 83642
I