HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Richard Ortongun U1 04 11:49a Toothman Orton Engr. CO. 208-323-2399
p.1
.~ a~~~;r~T~r
i U; ~ 0 1 2004
June 1, 2004
IuCHARD F., JR AND J~AIV~ ORTON `.-';.,;~,' ~t`_Yier:di-ar-
46Q F,. LINKERSH:TM ~~-ey ti_ ierk +.?~it;e
MERIDIAN, ID 8?~642
Mayor DeVeerd and City Council
C/o City Clerk
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
RL+'r REZONE TO R-15, VAR)p,NC~S, AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FOR SOUTFIWOODS SUBDIVISION
Dear Madam Mayor and City Council Members;
We have several concenls regarding the proposed Southwoods Subdivision and the
accompanying rezone t~equest (from R-4 to R-15), variance requests, and Planned Unit
Development request.
k-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
hack (east) part of the property.
The note on llre comprehensive plazl land use map ways 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 the other half, maintaining an overall density of medium density as shown on the lard
use map.
In all cases, rezones must meet al] of the criteria listed in the 1.oning 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 part above), the ordinance requires
a change in the area or adjacent area that dictates the property should 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; Mnidiazr Road has
always been an arterial; this az~ea has always been single-family residential and
agricultural,
TI IN A7 ~ An ~ ~ • co
Jun O1 04 11:49a TOOLhman Orton Engr. LO. 209-323-2399
Another of the required criteria for a rezone is that the proposed uses will be harmonious
and appropriate with the existing chazacter of the vici~tity and not change that chazacter.
It is impossible to find that the uses allowed by the R-l 5 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 the property develops exactly as presented (of which we have no guarantee), it is
impossible to find that the 200+ people expected to occupy that 6.22 acres is not a change
to the chazacter of the surrounding area, which has fewer titan 12 people per acre.
Another 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 office buildings proposed for this site would exceed 1500 average daily
trips. Atl this traffic would dump onto Calderwood Drive, a substandazd collector street,
creating hazards there that do not now exist.
T3tere are a number of ways in which the proposed uses are disturbing, even if the
properly develops exactly as presented. The thrre shifts per day of employees coming
and going from the property, with vehicle headlights and noise; the security lighting;
daily garbage pickup.
We, therefore, do not believe the proposed rezone to :R-15 can properly be granted. We
also have some additional concerns.
The development as proposed is too dense for the site. This development "maxed out"
the site. Required setbacks azrd landscaping buffers required for the PUD arc not ntet.
The office lots do not meet dimensional standazds. T'he applicant claims iltey could not
meet standazds because this a "tight site". It is not the site that is at fault. The developer
is simply trying to squeeze too much onto it. We woiild 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 hazazdous. The Meridian Police Deparurtent told
Planning staff they had concems about rite location of the Alzheimer's facility, as
documented by two sepazate staff planners on Mazch 26.
Proximity to the Cen-mile drain, a wide and swift open waterway (not proposed to be
covclyd), could prove disastrous. Choosing to locau 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 ilte specific
concerns of the police department regazding the location of the Alzheimer's facility.
Second, it is important to know whether the proposed bridge across the ten-mile drain
p.2
JUN 01 '04 12: RR
cngr. 1.0. 209-3Z3-2399 P.3
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 area? The EPA and Army
Corps of Engineers (who administer wetland regulations) have not been contacted about
the proposed bridge. The Idaho DeparOnent of Water Resources and the Dcpartmeut of
Environmental Quality should be contacted regazding the .loss of streatn habitat. These
issues must be addressed before the Council makes a decision on the Planned Unit
Dcveloprucnt.
T'he setback and buffering requirements should not rereive variances- On the
revised site plan, dated May IS, a fifteen-feet wide larn9scaped strip is shown between the
Alzheimer's facility and parking lot and our back fence. The notes on the site plan state
five feet will be provided. Twenty feet is requirul by the Planned Unit bevelopment
regulations. We have heazd no reason why the twenty feet will not be provided. A
variattce to that requirement should not be considered, as the only hazdship on the
applicant's property is self-imposed by trying to put loo much on too small a site.
The required twenty-feet wide buffer should be Iatrdsaaped and screened to block some
of the excess light coming from this sight.
The proposed rezone, and the development proposed, will negatively impact our
property. We would prefer the lmld to remain zonetl R-4 and no adjacent high-density
or ittstitutional uses. However, if the rezone pro~:eeds, we woRuld like to see a
development agreement that would tie that rezone to tike specific development proposed.
We would also like to have the Alzheimer's unit relocated within the property to
minimize ils impacts on us and also to impirovc the std'ety of Utc facility's residents. h1
any case, if development proceeds on this property, we would like the twenty-feet wide
buffer as described above.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the requested R-15 rezone.
Richazd F. Orton, Jr.
(20&)631-9660
Tle K:/eN~AW01ila-Ormn 0.aone Doe doe
JUN 01 '04 12 00 ?RR ~~7 zoo onr_r ram