Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-17 Chad Hamel Charlene Way From:Chad <chadhamel@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 17, 2020 3:07 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Fw: Compass Point H-2020-0062 See below email that was submitted before the last P+Z hearing was postponed. From: Chad <chadhamel@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 10:00 AM To: cityclerk@meridiancity.org <cityclerk@meridiancity.org> Subject: Compass Point H-2020-0062 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners- I am a Meridian resident who is opposed to this annexation and PUD request for Compass Point. This project should not be approved for the following reasons: 1. Density and single point access: This project is too dense for this parcel due to the unique location, shape and natural constraints. The proximity to the future roundabout at Locust Grove and Victory makes access to this triangle parcel a challenge. Placing a single point entry for 50 townhouses so close to the Southbound traffic lane coming off a roundabout seems very unsafe. Has ACHD and Meridian verified that the distance from the project entry to Locust Grove merging traffic coming off the roundabout meets ACHD and ASHTO standards? ACHD’s staff report is not yet available for review but I see this as a potential safety issue. Residents who want to go Northbound on Locust, which will probably be close to 80%, will have hard time finding a safe time to exit the proposed project on to Locust Grove. Has ACHD modeled traffic with the Roundabout and have those future traffic counts been considered as part of the planning for the project entry and resident access? 2. Comp plan designation is not a right, it is guide: Just because the property is identified as Medium Density on the Comp Plan does not mean it has to be. Each parcel should be evaluated individually as they wish to be incorporated into the City. This project would make much more sense in a different location that did not have the physical constraints. I understand and can sympathize with the developer for trying to get density on this difficult parcel but this project does not blend in with any of the neighboring subdivisions. This is simply too dense for this location. 3. Setback Reduction: No reduction of rear setbacks should be granted for this project so they can squeeze more units in. Any project that proposes this amount of units on a difficult parcel should not be allowed to reduce rear setbacks. This request is a convenience for the developer and should not be approved. It will negatively impact all the Tuscany Village residents that back up to the Ten Mile Drain and who would now have to look at the rear of 2-4 Townhouses directly behind their home. 4. Fencing: Proposed exterior fencing along Ten Mile Drain should match the privacy fencing along Victory and Locust Grove. That many units along the Ten Mile Drain with such small backyards should not have open fencing. I was not able to view the landscape plans online and could not tell what is proposed along the Ten Mile Drain. No open fencing should be approved along Ten Mile and it should be a 6’ privacy fence to match what is planned along Locust Grove and Victory. 5. Common Area and Parking: This project is lacking both adequate guest parking and common areas for residential use. This project is using the Ten Mile Drain property that is unusable as qualified open space. This is certainly allowable by code definition but once again, is not practical and is misleading. The developer should be required to provide more common areas and amenities for such a large number of units on a small property. It also appears that the project is under parked and is not providing adequate guest parking areas. Due to the size of the proposed units residents will most likely use their garage as storage rather than 1 parking. That means residents will be parking in the driveway and would leave guests to park on the street. Since the streets are private and will be owned and maintained by the HOA is the HOA going to police and remove cars parked on the street? Street parking is a safety and fire hazard for streets that narrow. 6. Drainage: The project does not appear to have adequate storm drain capacity. Groundwater is fairly shallow due to the proximity to the Ten Mile Drain. In the application the developer states that they are planning on using some of the common area to install subsurface drainage beds. Due to small amount of open space and shallow groundwater this doesn’t seem like a feasible solution due to the amount of paved surfaces and rooftops that that will be draining to the storm beds. Because the streets and storm system will be not owned and maintained by ACHD what assurance can the City and HOA provide that the proposed storm water drainage system is adequate and will function properly? Any private storm system will need to be maintained by the HOA and the developer should be required to prove their proposed storm system is feasible before the City grants them permission to build 50 units on such a small parcel with groundwater issues. The developer will say this will be figured out at final design but the City should not approve an annexation unless the property can demonstrate it will not adversely affect existing residents and quality of life. In summary, this project should not be approved and annexed into the City as currently proposed. It does not fit with the surrounding area and poses numerous safety and traffic concerns. Meridian does not need this type of project in this location. Thank you! Chad Hamel 2