HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Richard OrtonJUh U1 04 11:49a TOOthman 01`LOn Engn. GO. 208-323-2399
p.l
June 1, 2004
J~a~ '~ ! 204
RICIiA,RD F., JR AND J~AtvC OR~'ON ~~~ ~~ ~~ ;'I`ale1~'~'~
460 F,. LINKERSH:IM i'~ c~- ^_~ie7~i~ ~~t~._t`~
MERIDIAN, ID 83642
Mayor DeVeerd and City Council
C/o City Clerk
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
RE: REZONE TO R-15, VARIANCES, AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
pOR SOUTHWOODS SUBDIVISION
Dear Madam Mayor and City Council Members;
We have several concenls regarding the proposed Southwoods Subdivision and the
accompanying rezone request (from R-4 to R-15), variance requests, and Planned Unit
Developmc~tt request.
R-15 zoning is incompatible with the surrounding area and the required criteria for
rezone are not met. The subject property is now zoned R-4, as is the land in ow
residential subdivision. There is no justification for R-15 high-density zoning on the
back (east) Part of the properly,
The note on llte comprehensive plazl land use map wsa misapplied by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The "step up" in density referred to in the note allows, for example,
high-density residential on half of the property (the st:p up) and low density residential
on Che other half, maitltaining an over¢ll density of medium density as shown on the land
use map.
In all oases, rezones must meet al] of the criteria listed ]n the Zoning ordinance fbt
approving a rezone. This proposal does not meet all of the listed criteria. Irt addition to
conformity with the comprehensive plan (addressed in cart above), the ordinance requires
a change in the area or adjacent area that dictates the property sltould be rezoned. This
issue was not addressed in the staff report or by the Planning Commission. There has not
been any rhange in the area that would justify a rezone to 12-15; Mclidiazr Road has
always been an arterial; this azea has always been single-family residential and
agricultwal.
71 IN R~ pan a~•co
Jun O1 04 11:49a TOOLhman OrLOn En~r`. CO. 209-323-2399
Another of the required criteria for a rezone is that the proposed uses will be harmonious
and appropriate with the existing character of the vicinity and not change that character.
It is impossible to find that the uses allowed by the It-1 S zone (up to 93 dwelling units on
the 6.22 acres proposed for R-15 zoning!) would not change the character of the low-
density 4 dwelling units per acre residential neighborhood that abuts this property.
Even if tkre property develops exactly as presented (of which we have no guarantec), it is
impossible to find that the 200+ people expected to occupy that 6.'L"L acres is not a change
to the character of the surrounding area, which has fewer than 12 people per acre.
Anotkrer of the required criteria is that the proposed uses will not be hazardous or
disturbing to neighboring uses. The traffic generated by the potential 93 dwelling units
and the thirteen ofrzce buildings proposed for this site would cxcecd 1500 avcragc daily
trips. All this traffic would dump onto Calderwood Drive, a substandazd collector street,
creating hazards there that do not now exist.
There are a number of ways in which the proposed uses are. disturbing, even if the
property develops exactly as presented. The three shifts per day of employees corning
and going from the property, with vehicle headlights and noise; the security lighting;
daily gazbage pickup,
We, therefore, do not believe the proposed rezone to :(t-15 can properly be granted. We
also have some additional concerns.
TEie development as proposed is too dense for the site. This development "maxed out"
the site. Required setbacks azid landscaping buffers required for the 1'UA arc not met.
The office lots do not meet dimensional standards, 7'he applicant claims they could not
meet standazds because this a "tight site". It is not ihe~ site that is at fault. The developer
is simply trying to squeeze too much onto it. We worild like to see a redesign of the site
that meets all requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances.
The location of the Alzheimer's facility is incompatible and hazardous. In addition to
being incompatible with our low-density residential subdivision, the positioning of the
Alzheimer's facility on the lost is hazardous. The Meridian Police Depattment rold
Planning staff they had concems about the locaton of the Alzheimer's facility, as
documented by two sepazate staff planners on Mazch :!6.
Proximity to the ten-mile drain, a wide and swift open waterway (not proposed to be
covcrtd), could prove disastrous. Choosing to local: the facility on this portion of the
site is a bad choice. We would like to see the Alzheimer's facility relocated to more
compatible and safer site.
Additional information is necessary before reaching a decision. There aze at least
three issues that need additional information. First, it is important to know the specific
concems of the police department regarding the location of the Alzheimer's facility.
Second, it is important to know whether the proposed bridge across the ten-mile drain
p.z
JUN 01 '04 1?_: RR
__... __ _ -_.....,:, ~.... ..~,uron ~,~c,~n cngr. 1.0. 208-3[3-2399
will be allowed. Comments specific to that issue have not yet been received from the
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. There may also be an issue with the bridge location.
Do regulations regazding floodplain and wetlands apply to this azea? The EPA and Army
Corps of ]engineers (who administer wetland regulations) have not been contacted about
the proposed bridge. The Idaho 1~eparlment of Water Resources and nc~ llcpartment of
Environmental Quality should be contacted regazding the loss of streazn habitat. These
issues must be addressed before the Council make.. a decision on the Planned Unit
bevelopmcnl.
The setback and buffering requirements should not receive variances. On the
revised site plan, dated May 18, a fifteen-feet wide landscaped strip is shown between the
Alzheimer's facility and pazking lot and our back fence. The notes on the site plan state
five feet will be provided. Twenty feet is requiral by ttte Planned Unit Development
regulations. We have heazd no reason why the twenty feet will not be provided. A
variance to that requirement should not be considered, as the otily hardship on the
applicant's property is self-imposed by trying to put too much on too small a site.
The required twenty-feet wide buffer should be landsoaped and screened to block some
of the excess &ght coming from this sight.
The proposed rezone, and the development proposed, will negatively impact our
property, bVe would prefer the land to remain zonefl 12-4 and no adjacent high-density
or itutitutional uses. However, if the rezone propseeds, we wo8uld like to see a
development agreement that would tie that rezone to the specific development proposed.
We would also like to have the Alzheimer's unit relocated within the property to
minimi2o its impacts on us and also to improve the safety of Ute facility's residents, ht
any case, if development proceeds on this property, a e would like the twenty-feet wide
buffer as described above.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the requested It• 15 rezone.
Richard F. Orton, Jr.
(208)631-9660
Rlc K/miynpfiiu-Omn Rexene Da doe
p.3
JUN 01 '04 1200 7RR 774 77g0 onr_r n~