HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Richard Ortongun U1 04 11:49a
Toothman OrLOn Engr. Go. Z08-323-2399
p.l
.~~~:~~I~~T
~~.~~~ !~ a zoos
June 1, 2004
RICHARD F., JR. AND JAS ORTON ~'[_ , ;_t Nie~~di«~:
46Q F.. LINKERSH:TM "; ''~"''k ±?f~ic c
MERIDIAN, ID 8?~642
Mayor DeVeerd and City Council
C/o City Clerk
33 L.ldaho
Meridian, ID 83642
RH'.: REZONE TO R-15, VARIANCES, AND pLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
I~OR SOUTHWOODS SUBDIVISION
Dear Madam Mayor and City Council Members;
We have several concenu regazding the proposed Southwoods Subdivision and the
accompanying rezone request (from R-4 to R-15), variance requests, and Planrted Unit
Development request.
R-15 zouing is incompatible with the surtou¢di¢g area a¢d the required criteria for
rezo¢c are not met. The subject property is now zoned R-4, as is the land in our
residential subdivision. There is no justification for R-15 high-density zoning on the
hack (east) part of the property.
71te note on the comprehensive plaza land use map ws~s 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 den.riry ~f medium density as sho~+ni on the land
use map.
In all eases, rezones must meet all of the criteria listed in the Zoning ordinance Tor
approving a rezone. This proposal does not meet al] of the listed criteria. [n 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 addtessed in the staff report or by the Planning Commission. There has not
been any rhange in the area that would justify a rezone to R-15; Meridian Road teas
always been an arterial; this area has always been single-family residential and
agricultural.
Jun 01 O4 11:49a
Toothman Orton Engr. Go. 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 fmd that the uses allowed by the R-15 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 oc<:upy that 6.22 acres is not a change
to the chazacter of the surrounding area, which has fewer than 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 cxcccd 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
properly develops exactly as presented. The thrre sk~ifts per day of employees coming
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 :ft-15 can properly be granted. We
also have some additions] concems.
The development as proposed is too dense for the site. This development "maxed out"
the site. Required setbacks and landscaping buffers required for the PUD arc not met.
The office lots do not meet dimensional standazds. The applicant claims they could not
meet standazds because this a "tight site'. It is not they site that is at fault. The developer
is simply trying to squeeze too much onto it. We wotlld like Lo 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 Department told
Planning staff they had concems about the location of the Alzheimer's facility, as
documented by two separate staff planners on Mazch'<!6.
Proximity to the ten-mile drain, a wide and swift open waterway (not proposed to be
covered), could prove disastrous. Choosing to locale 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 impnrtzt 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.2
JUN 01 '0a 1?_: RR
_- - -..,..,.., ~.... .., inian ur,. a/n ~ngr. 1.0. i'U8 -3z3-2399
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 area? The EPA and Army
Corps of Engineers (who administer wetland regulations) have not been contacted about
the proposed bridge. The Idaho Department of Water Resources and the Dcpartmem of
Environmental Quality should be contacted regazding the loss of streatn habitat. These
issues must be addressed before the Council make,. a decision on the Planned Unit
Dc-veloptncnt.
The setback and buffering requirements should not rereive 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 Ity the Planned Unit Development
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 isself-imposed by trying to put too much on too small a site.
The required twenty-feet wide buffer should be landscaped and screened to block some
of the excess light coming from this sight.
The proposed rezone, and [be development proptsed, will negatively impact our
property. We would prefer the land to remain zoned R-4 and no adjacent high-density
or ittstitutional uses. However, if the rezone pro.seeds, we wo8uld like ro see a
development agreement that would tie that rezone to fhe specific development proposed.
We would also like to have the Alzheimer's unit relocated within the properly to
minimize its impacts on us and also to impirovc the s«fety of Ute fauility's residents. 11r
any case, if development proceeds on this property, tt a 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.
(208)631-9660
Pie K:/wryugfla-Orton Rcmne DOC doe
p.3
JUN 01 ' 04 12 ~ 00 7G1R z~z 7zac o^"r= r'~