Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/1/04 Letter from Brittons Meridian, Idaho May 26, 2004 Mayor I)eWeerd and City Council City of Meridian, Idaho~- / hand delivered S ~q'~Jy R~c>Jiv ~l~ j .lUN - 1 2U(!CE CITY OF N1E1i11)1?i Re; Rezone to R-15, variances, and Planned Unit Development for Southwoods Subdivision. Dear madam Mayor and City Council members: We have several concerns regarding.the proposed Southwoods Subdivision and the accompanying rezone request (from R-4 to R-15), variance requests, and Planned Unit Development request. f)ur home is located immediately adjacent to the proposed Alzheimer's facility and we will be directly affected by the development. 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 our residential neighborhood adjacent to the subject property. We see no justification for R-15 high-density zoning on the back (east) part of the property that abuts our single-family residential neighborhood. The note on the comprehensive plan land use map was misapplied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The "step up" in density referred to in the note would allow, for example, high density residential on half of the property (the step up) and low density residential on the other half, maintaining an overall density of medium density as shown on the land use map. This interpretation is the only one that makes sense; otherwise, the land use map is meaningless as a plamiing tool. In all cases, rezones must meet all of the criteria listed in the zoning ordinance for dpproving a rezone. In addition to conformity with the comprehensive plan (addressed ~ P~'above), the ordinance requires there to have been 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 change in the area that would justify a rezone to R-1S: Meridian Road has always been an arterial; this area has always been single-family residential and agricultural. Another of the required criteria for a rezone is that the ~iroposed 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 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 occupy that 6.22 acres is not a change to the character 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 potentia193,dwelling units and the thirteen office buildings proposed for this site would exceed 1500 average daily trips. All this traffic would dump onto Calderwood Drive, a substandard collector street, creating hazards there that do not now exist. There would be a number of ways in which the proposed uses would be disturbing, even if the property develops exactly as presented. The three shifts per day of employees coming and going from the property, wig vehicle headlights and noise; the security lighting; daily g g p P• Also, experience in the health field has made us aware that patients suffering from advanced Alzheimer`s often moan loudly. We consider these noises and lights to be highly disturbing to the ambience of our home and back yard, which would be just feet away from the Alzheimer's facility. We therefore do not believe.the proposed rezone to R-1 S can properly be granted. If, however, the Council does not agree, and decides to reanne the property R-I5, we have additional concerns we ask the Council to address, as follows. A development, agreement is necessary to protect the neighborhood- and the city. There is no guarantee this property will be developed as presented. Circumstances change; deals fall through. The owners are in noway obligated to follow through with the Planned Unit Development as presented to the Council. If this land receives a rezone to R-15, then the owners (or future owners) have every right to put high-density 93-dwelling-unit housing on this 6.22 acres. ` While we believe the rezone request should be denied, if the council should decide to rezone, then a deuelopment.agreement should be required to tie the rezone to this development rather than allowing any and all R-15 uses to be placed on the site. The development as proposed is too dense! intense for the site. This development "waxed out" the site and kept an going. Required setbacks and landscaping buffers required for the PUD are not met. The office lots do not meet dimensional standards. The applicant claims they could not meet standards because this is a "tight site." It is not the site that is at fault. The developer is simply trying to's~queeze too much onto it. We would like to see a redesign of the site that meets all requirements of the zoning and subdivision ardvnances. The location of the Alzheimer's facility is incompatible and hazardous. In addition to being incompatible with the location of our home and with our low-density residential neighborhood, the positioning of the Alzheimer's facility on the lot is hazardous. The Meridian Police Department told planning staff they had concerns about the location of the Alzheimer's facility, as documegted by two separate staff planners on March 26. Proximity to the ten-mile drain, a wide and swift open waterway (not proposed to be covered), could prove disastrous: ~Ve have all heard of instances where Alzheimer's patients have walked away from secure facilities. It would be a very short walk to the ten-mile drain. Choosing to locate the facility on this portion of the site is an odd choice. We would like to seethe Alzheimer's facility relocated to the interior of the site. Additional information is necessary before reaching a decision. There are at least three issues that need additional information. First, it is important to know the specific concerns 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 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 regarding floodplain and wetlands apply to this areal The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers (who administer wetland regulations) have not been contacted about the proposed bridge. We would like to see these issues addressed before the Council md[ces a decision on the Planned Unit Development. The setback and buffering requirements should not receive variances. On the revised site plan, dated ]vtay 18, a fifteen-feet wide landscaped strip is shown between the Alzheimer's facility and paxking lot and our back fence. 'The notes on the site plan state five feet will be provided Twenty. feet is required by the Planned Unit Development regulations. We have heard no reason why the twenty.feet will not be provided. We do not believe a variance to that requirement should be considered, as the only hardship on the applicant's property is self imposed by trying to put too much on too small a site. In the required twenty feet wide buffer we would 1'ilse to see aneight-feet high masonry wall adjacent to our back fence. The wall would deflect noise and block some of excess light coming from the site. The proposed. rezone, and the development proposed, will negatively impact our property. our ~ remain zoned R 4 and We would prefer the land abutting prop~Y would prefer no adjacent high-density or institutional uses. However, if the rezone proceeds, we would 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 minimize its impacts onus and also to improve the safety of the facility's residents. In any case, if development proceeds an this property, we would like the twenty-feet wide buffer as described above. Thank you far this opportunity to comment on the requested R-15 rezone. We look forward. to providing adchttonal details about these concerns at the public hearing. Sincerely,/ /~~ Lester and Becky Brittc 2019 SE 3rd Way We, the undersigned, are also directly impacted by the3sroposed development and -are neighbors to the Brittons. We agree with the points raised in the Brittons' letter. egg s~~ ,06 SE, VTr~B ~"s'1 Paula Swanson (Nate: Blaine and Mary Jane Bennett are out of town but have agreed to sign when they return.) Blaine Bennett 343 E. Calderwood Drive Mary Jane Bennett 343 E. Calderwaod Drive Doug Olson 309 E. Calderwood Drive Marie Olson 309 E. Calderwood Drive ,'~' hick Openshaw 2049 SE 3tcl Way Glenda ppenshaw ~9SE3rdW ~~~ Tom Silvester 1910 Marshwood Judy Silvester 1910 lviarshwood a 2024 SE 3rd Way Linda n~ 2024 SE 3rd Way 33~ ~ C',4~l~t~tw~'~~ r~dt- l~l~/tr DiA~I, rl~ Sr3~ yv ~^ ~~~~~ Y1j `~~/ S.E- 3~~ ~ /~2u~.Gc-.~rc~ : ~`Q ~'' ~~ /®~ ,~ ~~ aQ°~jr~" ' ~ f ds~I`~ 1--• 570 ~- ~T l~ ~7'T'S ~~~Oi ~/ .. _ ~~.~ ~~ , ~3 / ~' ~GL/ V. ~+CJHi i~'-Y ~~~Q r ~~~ . N~ f~ ~ o h 5' g r~r7 ~t~-G ~~~ ~~1~~ ~er- "~ y~~v. ~~r~ ~ ~~~,-~~ . CC: SHAUN WARDLE CHARLIE ROUNDTREE .KEITH BIIU7 BILL NARY BACK YARD OF DOUG & MARIE OLSON 309 E. CALDERWOOD DR. BACK YARD OF BLAINE & MARY JANE BENNETT 343 E. CALDERWOOD DR. BACK YARD OF LESTER & BECKY BRITTON 2019 S.E. 3rd.WAY THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A 2000 SQ.FT. HOME WITH 3-CAR ATTACHED GARAGE. THESE LOTS WILL BE APROX 1/.4 ACRE EACH WHICH IS VERY COMPATIBLEI WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. I ' I I' ~~ I ~i I j ~ I ~i I I I I I b I I 5 ~4w ~ I I ~~ j ~ ~ I ~ I I~~ i ~ I j --- I a. II I ~ ~ I i i ~ i I i i I ~~ ~ I I ~ __ ____ I L /_. _ ._ _ _ _ - _ _.~.. _.. _.._.._.._.._.._.._..-1 ss ' ~' .. ~ 1 ~_~ ~a~l 938-8288 mx ~. (ix+inr.s Wnr