Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter of Reconsideration 9/10 4205 North Locust Grove Road Meridian, Idaho 83642-5551 September 9, 2004 Mayor and City Council City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 .RECEIVE]) Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Files: AZ-O4-011, CUP-O4-O15, PP-O4-017 Alexandria Subdivision Cll Y OF MERIDIAN Giro' c:: E:~:~ ",:,r¡:¡CF Honorable Mayor De Weerd and Council Members: We are requesting that the Mayor and Council reconsider our application for annexation, detailed planned development (CUP) and preliminary plat for the subject development Obviously we were disheartened and disappointed by the council's recent denial of the subject project We are convinced that this project will be an asset for the city - one that the city and we will be proud of. It is an excellent project under any circumstances, but particularly when one considers the challenges presented by a parcel of ground with the dimensional constraints it contains and the fact that we must match and co-exist with recent development projects that have been approved in our vicinity. We are sure that when the development is completed it will be an example that will be copied as a quality concept for "empty-nesters" to enjoy a life style requiring less yard care, while still enjoying open spaces and private outdoor living areas. We are proposing "step-less" homes to assist the comfort of residents as they age in place - to be able to extend the time that they can enjoyably live in this project These "step-less" homes are well suited to Americans with disabilities that want to own a free access home, Backaround In 1992 when we bought the property at 4205 North Locust Grove Road, we knew that in time development would overtake the rural setting it was in at that time. That is now taking place. We always figured we would sell the place when it got crowded and move to another rural property. Last year when the property north of us sold to be developed, we decided to develop the property ourselves. Part of that decision was because we like where we live and felt that we could build a community that we felt comfortable in. I think we have designed one that will accomplish that Page 1 of 5 .- Our target market is "us". My wife and I have gone through many "Parade of Homes" houses, and while we saw many wonderful features, styles and designs, very few if any were what we were looking for. Having finished raising our 4 kids, we looked for a home style that was friendly to entertaining friends and relatives - living rooms and kitchens and dining areas that were spacious and inclusive, with tall ceilings that added to a general roomy atmosphere. When we found living spaces like that, the homes were almost always 3,000 square feet or more. Too large for "empty-nesters" - out of that was born our concept Residential Area We felt if we could build homes that met the criteria we were looking for, we could also build a community that would invite residents that shared similar needs and preferences. We first had to categorize what those needs and preferences are. We did a lot of research on the Internet and talked to a lot of real estate agents and came up with some of the following points that target a market of "empty-nesters" or single professionals. 1. A home where the living and entertainment areas are emphasized and extra bedrooms and formal dining living .rooms are not taking up the available square footage. They still want a real house, but are not so enthused about taking care of a yard. Homes located in a community of people who are in similar stages of life. A good location that gives access to work, shopping and recreation. A home and community that is close to the kind of developments where their kids and grand kids would live. Single level homes that are built with wheelchair needs in mind that would let them age in place or take care of a parent or relative if needed. A common area located and designed to engage the residents with each other, contributing to a general feeling of safety and well being. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Occupants of the style of homes proposed for this project typically have little or no impact on the school system and still provide property tax funding for the school system. Professional Office/Commercial Area We believe the commercial area proposed presents a unique opportunity to combine a residential community and a commercial area that could be utilized by any of the residents in that community and the area. I'm not talking about using the services, which is obvious. I'm talking about owning a business or working for one there. More and more people are looking for ways to work at home to avoid fighting traffic every morning and night, some simply can't do that and zoning laws limit what kind of business can be done in a home. This kind of development provides the opportunity for someone to own a home, like the ones we offer, and to have a business very close to home. We believe Page 2 of 5 it is a very good fit in a very good location for the right kind of business. When we first contacted the Planning and Zoning Staff about some general ideas on how we might develop our property, they discouraged us from considering any commercial areas. They indicated that the neighborhood center was intended to have the commercial areas near the center of the section where the semi circle was centered, so we started out believing that we were too far out to get any favorable consideration. As our neighbor to the north started his development, we decided to follow that development to learn how the system works. We were quite amazed at the amount of opposition that was expressed at the first Planning and Zoning meeting. The room was pretty much filled up and the meeting lasted for several hours. The neighbors were not happy with any development at all, but seemed most unhappy with the proposal for patio homes located near the east end of the property near Locust Grove Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the plan and suggested that the LO zoning might be more appropriate for that area within the neighborhood center where the patio homes were proposed. We then went back to the Planning and Zoning staff and talked to them about the portion of our property near Locust Grove in light of the Planning and Zoning recommendation to the neighbor to the north to go with Limited Office. They agreed that this seemed to be the preference of the neighbors with all their concerns and the Planning and Zoning Commission, so we began to incorporate that idea into our overall planned community. We believe it is a very good mixed-use plan. There was little reason for us to believe that the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council would go completely away from the guideline of centralizing the commercial area. In our opinion if the city now denies projects in this neighborhood center because of the 10-acre guideline within the comprehensive plan, what will result is an even worse result - fragmented, hop scotch commercial areas with no cohesiveness or commonality at all. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council passed the other commercial plans along Locust Grove, even though they did not comply with the "being centralized" guidelines, then they should approve our proposal. We believe our project is more in conformance to the intended mixed-use designation than others that have already been approved. The 10-acre guideline was broken for this mixed-use neighborhood center with the recent approval of Brockton Subdivision. The comp plan requirement for projects in this area to be mixed use was also not adhered to with Brockton. Our project engineer, Mr. Joe Canning, testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council public hearings of Brockton Subdivision. He spoke to the concern of the comp plan recommendation for a maximum of 10 acres in these neighborhood centers. Our project was already submitted and the 10 acres were rapidly Page 3 of 5 . -, . '," being consumed by other projects. He simply wanted to go on record stating his concern for the upcoming hearing process for Alexandria Subdivision. Reauest for Reconsideration We believe that there was a complete misunderstanding of how parking would be accommodated along the southerly road that is shared with our neighbor to the south. Also we can only believe that issues that neighbors and the council may have with the professional office and light retail area depicted in our application may be easily resolved with restrictions that benefit our neighbors and our development We will simply not allow any moderate to heavy retail uses within the project - we do not want them. We would not object if the Council would prefer a Limited Office zone instead of the Commercial Neighborhood zone. Parkina and the South Road The southerly road within Alexandria Subdivision is identically the same configuration as the internal roads that were recently approved in Razzberry Crossing Subdivision. It is also the same as the northerly road in Heritage Commons that is now under construction, We are not asking for any special consideration, There is confusion over what this road is proposed to be now and what it will be when entirely completed with the development of the land to south. Parking will be allowed on one side of the road as currently proposed without any further improvements. Due to action by the Ada County Highway District, we are proposing to install all improvements along the south road other than the sidewalk. When the parcel to the south develops, the applicant of that project will install the sidewalk and dedicate 10 more feet of right- of-way to bring the final road width to 50 feet of right-of-way. The road will not have to widened, We have attached a copy of the cross-section of the southerly road that will be constructed with this project It will be 29 feet from back of curb to back of curb. This will allow parking on one entire side of the road as allowed by the Fire Department and the Ada County Highway District Professional Offices/Commercial Area Meridian's comprehensive plan requires developments in the Mixed-Use Neighborhood Center to be MIXED USE. Alexandria proposes two uses to meet this mixed-use requirement - single family residential, professional offices and light retail consistent with less intensive uses allowed within the CN zone. The applicant is more than willing to restrict more intense uses allowed in the CN zone or to simply change to a LO zone, The testimony heard at the Council meeting indicated that the only concern of the neighbors was the retail uses. Page4of5 Our goal is to match what is being approved in the immediate area. This will provide a cohesive land use pattern in the area - one that is planned. Another use that could be proposed for the area adjacent to Locust Grove Road would be multi-family residential - apartments, After attending the public hearing process for Razzberry Crossing Subdivision, we know that the residents are completely opposed to multi-family in this area, We believe the use that we have proposed is the best fit for our development and the entire area. Professional offices and light retail are good neighbors to homes, It is helpful having the area occupied during the day and not used at night This is opposite to the time uses of residential areas. We are proposing to allow shared parking in the professional office area to augment parking for the residential area. Although there already is adequate parking for each residential lot, occasional special events, such as family gatherings or get-togethers, require additional parking, The office area is an excellent source for this intermittent parking - a true multiple use of the site, The uses co-exist well. It is anticipated that some homeowners in the project will be interested in having a business in the professional office/retail area within the project - a situation allowing a live-work environment that should be encouraged. Summary We humbly request that the City Council reconsider their recent action of denial of this project Our grounds for this request is based upon our belief that there was a strong misunderstanding of parking situation along the south road and that there no opportunity to discuss the uses proposed in the CN zone request In our opinion, if this denial stands, the city is missing an opportunity for allowing a model development to occur on a site challenged by its shape and size - a development that we can be proud of, Please advise us of your action on our request for reconsideration, We would be more than happy to further discuss the project and its benefits, Sincerely, ~/- Lonnie Johnson Landowner and Applicant encl. Page 5 of 5 " fUTURE 10' PUBLIC RIGHT-Of-WAY so' TOTAL RIGHT-Of-WAY 40' RIGHT-Of-WAY - AREA TO BE DEVELOPED WITH ALEXANDRIA SUBDIVISION "'ÇOIOOW ¡§",~~C§5 ~~w1è"'[5 w"'5~ ~ "- "- W U fUTURE RIGHT-Of-WAY DEDICATION AND CONSTRUCTION I[&<l 2S' RIGHT-Of-WAY t EXISTING lS' ACCESS EASEMENT ,r ' lS,1( s' ---t- 4' ---ft- 12.S' +2' l.S' 2S' RIGHT-Of-WAY EXISTING lS' TO BE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC 29' BACK I TO BACK ":':"~:;'::'. ',~.ë::'",.:,/%~,>,,-,:,., CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER !.s.P.W.C. STANDARD DRAWING SD-714. .3" ROLLED CURB AND GUTTER WITH 6" BASE PER I.S.P.W.C. DWG. NO. SD-702. EAST GREEN HAVEN STREET SECTION (29' BACK TO BACK) LOOKING WEST NOT TO SCALE BASE COURSE - 4" Of 3/4" MINUS PER I.S.P.W.C. SECTION 802. 2 1/2" Of ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PER I.S.P.W.C. SECTION 807.