Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Citizens for Denial .; .- R~;(;J:j~IVEn SEP 0 7 200~ 6 September 2004 8W: ~!;/~;,eBj!J¡~~; Request to Deny Approval of Proposed Leeshire Subdivision - Dear City Coucilmembers: We, as residents of this area of Meridian, oppose the Leeshire subdivision as currently platted because it is the wrong plan to build in this area. The density of the homes is simply too high to appropriately transition between 3 low density agricultural neighborhoods. The presence of zero lot lines is unacceptable to us. The overall purpose ofR4 zoning to our understanding is to have at least 8000 square foot lots. This subdivision carefully skirts this rule by making it a "planned development" and planning large lots around the current owner's primary home site, and condensing too many lots in the front so the "average" is still 8000 square feet. We believe "averaging" is inappropriately used here and violates the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. Such a plan is not appropriate to transition between the agricultural neighborhoods. Commissioner David Zaremba at the zoning meeting suggested that he thought this was probably not the right place in Meridian for this type of higher density housing. We strongly oppose the commercial space proposed for the front of Lees hire. The Comprehensive Meridian City Plan does NOT call for any commercial space on this segment of Locust Grove Road. Many residents in the area have already testified at the zoning meeting (please see minutes) that they moved to this area counting on the fact that the city would follow its plan, and not allow rule exceptions to deviate from it in this case. There is already plenty of office space down the road a mile away in front of Heritage Commons, and there is another neighborhood commercial center already on the Comprehensive Plan less than a mile away around the corner of Locust Grove on Chinden. Commissioner Wendy Huckaby-Newton asked the question herself at the zoning meeting and opposed this subdivision, saying basically "Is commercial space really needed there?" We all agree the answer is no. Only 2 commercial spaces will not substantially serve any significant need in the proposed subdivision. It also is detrimental to the neighbors who believe it should not be there according to the Comprehensive City Plan. Section 11-17-3 of the city plan states regarding "conditional uses" that "B. the proposed use... WILL BE HARMONIOUS with the MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN." And that "c. the design. . . will be COMPATffiLE . ..with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and ... will NOT adversely change the essential character ofthe same area." We believe items D, F, and G also apply as problems for this subdivision. Also section 12-6-3-A states that the use exception must be "STRONGLY related to the principal use of the development", and is "E. NOT detrimental to adjacent neighborhoods in CHARACTER". A park or greenbelt makes sense in this regard and ARE compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Two commercial buildings are NOT strongly related to the principle ùse of the development in our opinion and are not needed in the general neighborhood. ~ ~. In addition L-O zoning (section 11- 7-2-G) "is designed to act as a buffer between other MORE INTENSE NONRESIDENTIAL USES and ffiGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES." It is therefore not intended as a Buffer between a higher density residential neighborhood and the surrounding LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL USES. It simply is an inappropriate transition. Finally the spirit and "purpose ofR4 zoning is to permit the establishment of LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY dwellings. . . and to PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF RESIDENTIAL areas by PROffiBITING THE INTRUSION OF INCOMPATIDLE NONRESIDENTIAL USES" allowing a maximum of 4 dwellings per acre. We also believe the park in the landowners backyard mainly serves the principle landowner at the rest of the subdivisions future expense and should be placed in the middle of the homes who are most likely to benefit from having a park in an open space where it is safer for children to play. We therefore request that the City Council deny approval for the proposed Leeshire Subdvision and require a more acceptable and appropriate proposal for development in this area. We agree that our Dunwoody Homeowners Association president or vice-president appoint someone to speak in our behalf at the City Council Meeting on September 7"'. rY.. ì~ ~~ ~"')~L t{!;~- ~~~ -.-