Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ - Public Testimony - REV - 10/9 (2)Machelle Hill From: Elizabeth Criner <elizabeth@veritasadvisor.com> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 4:26 PM To: Machelle Hill Subject: RE: Revised Application Comments - Easy Jet Subdivision Application (RZ 15-012, PP 15-016, CUP 15-017) Thank you for confirming receipt and inclusion for the hearing. Regards, Elizabeth Criner From: Machelle Hill [mailto:mhill@meridiancity.org] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 4:24 PM To: Elizabeth Criner <elizabeth@veritasadvisor.com> Subject: RE: Revised Application Comments - Easy Jet Subdivision Application (RZ 15-012, PP 15-016, CUP 15-017) Ms. Criner, Thank you for your comments/concerns. Your comments will be included into the public record for the Commissions' review and consideration at the upcoming public hearing. Thanks! From: Elizabeth Criner(ma i Ito: el iza beth (&veritasadvisor.com] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 4:14 PM To: Machelle Hill; clerk Subject: RE: Revised Application Comments - Easy Jet Subdivision Application (RZ 15-012, PP 15-016, CUP 15-017) Importance: High October 8, 2015 Machelle Hill Office of the City Clerk Meridian City Hall, Ste. 104 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Easy Jet Subdivision Application (RZ 15-012, PP 15-016, CUP 15-017 - REVISED) I am writing regarding the revised application listed above. I have included my letter in PDF format attached and here in the body of the email so that you have the format you require to provide to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners for the record for the October 15th hearing. I am a property owner in the Sutherland Farms subdivision and continue to have a number of concerns regarding this application. While I respect the right of the property owner to develop his or her property, there continue to be several concerns with the proposal. The revised plan for the property does not readily blend into the surrounding area that is already developed. In addition, the revised application continues to not fully comply with Meridian City code and planning documents. I have attended both public meetings held by the developer and their representatives. I provided written comments on the original application. I reviewed the revised application as submitted by the developer and their representatives, and noted some continued deficiencies with respect to City of Meridian codes that govern these developments, the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Mixed Use Community. In the rezone application they ask for 1.15 acres to be rezoned to L-0 and 4.25 acres to be rezoned to R-15. The original application noted 1.25 acres to be rezoned to L-0 and 4.15 acres for R-15. I am not certain if this is an error, or if the acreage of the two zones are intended to be changed. If they are intended to be changed, there were no additional details about plan layout or legal descriptions in the revised application. The number of apartment units in the revised application is now 64. If the acreage change is an error, the property proposed for rezone to R-15, the total number of apartment units allowable should be 62.25 —4.15 acres @ 15 units per acre = 62.25 units per acre. While the revised number of units is preferable, it still exceeds what would be calculated for R-15. (Please see Sec. 11-7-4 Standards) In addition, on the "Residential Project Summary" of the revised application, the developer continues to include the non-residential portion of the project (the acreage for L-O re -zone) as part of the overall gross acreage to determine their gross density — 5.41 acres @ 11.83 du/ac = 64 dwelling units. One final concern related to this application is the reference to "Net density" at 37.9 du/ac. I am not certain about the difference between the gross and net density figures, but if the reference would allow that number of residential dwellings per acre, then that is completely unacceptable and the application should be denied or corrected. Another continued point of concern in the revised application is the fact that they are asking to jump two steps in the re- zone request for the residential property. While they are applying for a zone that is recommended within the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Mixed Use Community, the revised plan still isn't "stepping" up to the next zone as is clearly recommended in the Comprehensive Plan documents which state that, "Density can only be changed one step." I can certainly understand the City providing developers an opportunity to step up to the next zone in a rezoning request for property that is adjacent to or surrounded by developed areas, and believe that a rezone to R-8 from the current R-4 would be acceptable and the best possible resolution to the issues on this property. A one-step rezone would blend into the developed areas that surround this small parcel of property. With the revised application they not only ignore this provision, they don't provide adequate buffer zones or transitional densities on all sides of the development, which is critical to ensure the integrity of the developed properties around the proposed site. The site abuts our neighborhood as well as property that is zoned for agriculture. The revised proposal would site a three story building along the property now zoned for agriculture, which provides no buffer, transition or privacy for that property owner. I noted in the original plan for the Sutherland Farm development that privacy for existing property was a big consideration on the part of planning and zoning and a number of requirements or limitations were placed on the original plan to ensure the privacy of the developed properties adjacent to our proposed neighborhood. I hope that as you consider the issues raised with the current request for changes to that plan that privacy continues to be of concern and addressed. Another point of concern related to the revised application is the continued inclusion of three story buildings. The revised application for R-15 includes a total of three buildings, two of which are three story structures and one that is two.stories. In addition, the revised maximum building height for the three story buildings is higher than originally proposed to residents in our neighborhood. We were initially told that the height would be 347'. On the revised application it looks like the height of the two 3-story complexes will be 39'4", which is almost five feet higher and further out of scale than the original plan with respect to blending with the existing surrounding development. Given the project is not currently designed to blend into the surrounding area and is stepping up in density two steps without proper buffer or transition areas, it is critical that these buildings be limited to 2-story structures and a maximum height that will better blend with the existing surrounding development. Standards included in 11-4-3-27 A-2 and A-3 require that "To create quality buildings and designs for multifamily development that enhance the visual character of the community." (A-2) Certainly the 3-story structures included in this design for the residential project, which is surrounded by a small property with horses and llamas, a dog kennel and neighborhood of single family homes, won't "enhance the visual character of the community nor is it a "site design in multifamily development that is sensitive to and well integrated with the surrounding neighborhood." (A-3) Another concern that was addressed in our neighborhood petition that I would like to again bring to your attention is the fact that these structures appear to be set up in a way that would allow for multiple owners. Any approval of an apartment complex should require a single owner for the whole complex. To allow for multiple owners of the three proposed multi -family buildings would be disastrous for all the surrounding, existing developments. Individual building owners allows for too much variation regarding the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings and surrounding property. Any approval for this revised proposal should require that the multi -family or R-15 area of the project be owned collectively as a single project or property. One final point that has never been addressed by the developer and property owner that I would ask you to consider is the impact this proposed development will have on our large park and walking path in Sutherland Farm. If any sort of multi -family building is approved, there should be some sort of monthly assessment imposed, per unit, on the complex, commensurate with the Home Owner's Association dues all Sutherland Farm homeowners pay to maintain the park and walking path in our neighborhood. We have no way of preventing residents of the proposed complex from using our park and walking path and there will be increased use and traffic impacting maintenance of both. As you review this proposal and consider the rights of the developer and property owner, I would just urge that you please keep in mind the more than 300 property owners who own homes that surround the parcel of land in question and please consider our rights as part of this equation. I know that when I made the decision to build my home in Sutherland Farm, I was cautious and inquired about the use of the undeveloped property at the entrance to our neighborhood. Information available at the time indicated R-4 zoning and we were told the lot would either match the small office complex on the North side of Easy Jet, or that they may build additional patio homes and duplexes. All of these uses were acceptable and would ensure that the property was developed for individual home or business ownership, fitting in with the rest of our neighborhood. The City of Meridian has developed good guidelines that are designed to prevent the problems associated with the revised proposal submitted by the property owner and developer. Addressing the concerns I have raised and further plan adjustments to the proposed development would respect all property owners in the area and ensure that the new development blends and is cohesive with the existing developed property. Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, Elizabeth Criner Home Owner / Property Owner Sutherland Farm Neighborhood 4173 E. Raja Drive Meridian, ID 83642