HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC - Public Testimony by Robert Neilson - 11/241
November 24, 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 Members of the Meridian City Council,
I am writing to express my concerns about the Easy Jet Subdivision. I am opposed to the revised application
as proposed. The most recent application information provided by the developer is his Application Revision 1
dated September 17, 2015. There has been no further formal revision of the application since the Planning
and Zoning Commission public hearing on October 15, 2015.
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).
Medium‐High Density Residential (R‐15) multi‐family housing is not appropriate for small lot infill
development and especially not appropriate directly abutting Medium‐Low Density Residential (R‐4) single
family homes. The plan does not provide transitional density with the surrounding residential area. The
Fields at Gramercy multi‐family housing development is an example of appropriate development with
transitional density, where 3‐story apartment buildings 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.
Three‐story multi‐family buildings are out of scale with the surrounding residential properties. At a second
neighborhood meeting, the developer’s representative told residents that their concerns expressed at the
first neighborhood meeting were unwarranted, and cited a study that looked at multifamily housing in six
large metropolitan areas.1 However, the study states that its results apply when the multi‐family housing is
attractive in appearance and of a scale compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Three story
apartment buildings and a gross density of 15.1 dwelling units per acre (64 DU on 4.25 acres) is not of a scale
compatible with a surrounding Medium‐Low Density (R‐4) neighborhood where 88% of the residential units
within 300 feet of the proposed development are single story. As proposed, the nearest homeowner is only
40 feet from a proposed 39’4” high 3‐story building. Looking to the northwest, that homeowner will have to
look up at an angle of over 31o from the horizon to see sky.
1 Mark Obrinski and Debra Stein, “Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing”, Report RR‐07‐14, Joint Center
for Housing Studies, Harvard University, March 2007.
2
The developer’s business plan is to sell each building (lot) to individual investors, but requiring that they use
the same property manager. There will not be a staffed on‐site manager’s office, but rather an off‐site phone
number. With each building having a separate owner, the potential result is that some buildings are well
maintained with others that are not and lack of an on‐site manager affects the ability to identify issues, much
less quickly and appropriately respond to them. This would affect the attractiveness of the development,
albeit long after the developer has gone.
The number of residential parking spaces required in City Code are likely not sufficient in today’s world of
non‐traditional occupants where bedrooms are subleased to save money with the result that a two bedroom
apartment can easily have four vehicles associated with it. Since Easy Jet is posted as no parking, 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, apartment dwellers will be parking on residential streets where the
residents themselves are not supposed to park.
There are 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 on Easy Jet especially at the signaled intersection. It will also significantly increase
traffic using Easy Jet and residential streets to exit/enter on to/from Cloverdale and Victory.
What can be done to make the proposed development more compatible with the existing residential area?
Please consider the following:
(1) Make the entire development L‐O instead of rezoning part of it as R‐15 with a CUP for multi‐family
housing. In the absence of this,
(2) Require that all of the multi‐family buildings be 2‐story with a maximum height of 29’4”.
(3) Require a unit density for the multi‐family housing in the mid‐range of the guidelines for Mixed Use‐
Community; this would result in a density of 10.5 DU/acre or about 44 dwelling units on the 4.25
acres occupied by the multi‐family housing.
(4) Require significantly more parking spaces than the code specifies and/or require a covenant in the
commercial unit lease/sales contracts to prohibit the businesses from posting “customer parking
only” signs.
(5) Prohibit subleasing of bedrooms and ensure that there is a mechanism to enforce it.
(6) Require a staffed on‐site management office.
(7) Implement the recommendations approved unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission at
its public hearing on October 15th. These recommendations largely implement items (2) – (4) above.
Yours truly,
Robert M. Neilson, Jr.
Robert M. Neilson, Jr.
3508 E Quin Drive, Meridian, ID 83642