The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-08-16 Celeste Fox August 12, 2021 Mayor Robert Simison Meridian City Council 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: File No: Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021-0024) 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: I am a Woodbridge resident, 582 S Woodhaven Ave, and will directly back up to the proposed Wells Street 81 two-story homes. As a Meridian home owner that will be directly impacted by this development, I respectfully request your careful review of the following issues that will negatively affect Woodbridge homeowners. • The project proposed by Babcock Designs intends to build 61 two-story houses with a row of 21 houses backed up to Woodhaven homes. Their plans indicate that they will build approximately two houses shadowing the back yard of my single story house and more than one house behind others. Our street is comprised of both single and two-story homes with varying sizes of back and side yards. • On 7-14-21, Project Manager Jamie Koenig of Babcock Designs, presented a copy of the site plan at the P&Z Commission Hearing. I received an email copy prior to the meeting to share with Woodbridge. It purported to show the relationship of their houses to ours. He also sent atCF1]n aerial view outlining the space between my house and their two houses. (Please see attachments 21 07 08 and 21 07 14). • P&Z Commission cited their concern for the impact of this project on Woodbridge. They also requested the side yard setbacks be increased from 3' to 5' and be added to the Development Agreement. The Commission voted to recommend approval of that specific Site Plan which showed specific figures of 27' from the fence line to the two- story house and 12' from the single story portion of the partial two-story house. Woodbridge expected that the Wells project houses would not be closer than was indicated on the site plan. I believe the P&Z Commission expected that also. P&Z Commission recommended that the developer reach out to the Woodbridge neighborhood to try to lessen negative impact. ➢ The developer has not reached out to Woodbridge other than an email copy of the newest site plan which did not change the setbacks to Woodhaven houses. ➢ After the P&Z Commission meeting, the developer told me that they are required to stagger the houses but not the distances shown on the site map. He stated as per code they only had to build 10' from the property line. (The project manager later changed this to 12'). He agreed that P&Z staff had required they stagger the houses but that if he staggered them only 3', that would suffice. He gave me an example that he could build two two-story houses back to one of our houses and use only a 3' stagger. He also stated that there would be multiple builders and each builder could deviate from the site plan setbacks. I asked about the aerial view of my house and he stated he had that sent to me but that is not what they were required to build behind me. I could very well end up with a huge wall of two-story houses very close to the fence line of my single story house, overlooking my main living space at the back of my house. The esthetics and value of my home will be negatively impacted. I was informed when I purchased my home in 2004 that the property behind me was intended to be light office as part of a medical corridor per Meridian's Comp Plan. I have hoped that changes to the comp plan (which I participated in) would have a positive effect on Woodbridge. ➢ I received emails from Mr. Koenig 8-10-21 and 8-11-21 with the updated site plan to be shared with Woodbridge which shows the same staggered footage, but the email from Jamie Koenig states, "There are home designs that will work for either example that we show. Some may be at 12; 27'or somewhere in between." This clearly shows they have no intent on following the site plan specifying 27' from the property line for two-story houses & 12' from the single-story houses. I am greatly concerned about the integrity of this builder and how our property values and quality of life will be negatively affected by his actions. ➢ The Woodbridge HOA previously supported the Andorra Project which consisted of all single-story houses backing up to Woodbridge. The developers reached out multiple times to ensure a high quality project that would not negatively impact the Woodbridge neighborhood. They provided detailed plans to assure us that the project they would build would have high quality standards in design, elevations, materials, landscaping, and finishes. They were focused on building senior housing which would as much as possible curtail the traffic issues that plague Woodbridge. ➢ This developer has misled Woodbridge on even how close the two-story houses could be against our back yards. We have no confidence that the developer's intent is to focus on senior housing as has been stated. No interior designs have been presented. We have been told that some of the two-story homes would have master bedrooms on the 2nd floor, which does not support senior housing focus. Woodbridge's traffic problems will be much worse with a housing development for families (multiple trips to WinCo, Meridian Dog Park, Home Depot, Schools, Storey Park, and avoidance of Eagle Road). Other examples of how we been misled are: we were told that windows would not be built on the back overlooking Woodhaven houses. This was refuted later. We were told at a neighborhood meeting that landscape screening would be provided between their houses and those along Woodhaven Ave, many of which are single story homes. The developer recently told me that back yards were the responsibility of the homeowner to do as they please. I am not in favor of this development. I do not trust the integrity of this developer to have consideration for Woodbridge. If you are in favor of approving this project, please consider adding the following requirements to the Development Agreement to protect the beautiful community of Woodbridge: 1. The setbacks between and behind houses be no less than is specified on the site plan 21 08 10 Wells Street—27' behind two-story houses, 12' behind single story portion of houses. 2. The amenities shown in the site plan and report, which favor seniors, must be required. 3. Windows would not be installed on the back of the houses overlooking Woodbridge. 4. Rear yard landscaping be provided that would provide screening to Woodhaven houses but not cause future maintenance issues. 5. The Assisted Living/Memory Care facility not be allowed to change to another type of housing, e.g. multi-family/apartments. Thank you for your consideration. Celeste Fox 582 S Woodhaven Ave Meridian ID 83642 Charlene Way From:Jamie Koenig <jamie@babcockdesign.com> Sent:Thursday, July 8, 2021 7:14 PM To:Celeste Fox Subject:Wells ST AL-MC & 40x100 Lots - aerial Attachments:21 07 08 Wells ST AL-MC & 40x100 Lots - for Celeste.pdf Celeste, Please see attached. I’ve labeled each home along the property line. This is a fairly accurate representation. 582 As you can see your garage lines up with one of the homes that will be single story at the back and the new home will be 12’ from the property line and your garage is also 12’ from the property line. Your main house with the deeper back yard looks to be about 27’ from the property line and one of the new 2 story homes is adjacent to that portion of your home and is also 27’ from the property line. So from the main part of your home to the face of the new house is a total distance of 54’ Keep in mind also that the current layout has the new homes 4’ and 4’ from the property line and in reality they will be 5’ and 5’ so we can have some windows along the sides of the homes. I’ll ask Brent what his plans are for the fence along the property line. Feel free to call with questions or comments. Hope this helps. It’s really actually going to be nice. Thanks. JAMIE KOENIG AIA / PROJECT MANAGER jamie@babcockdesign.com / 208.991.8171 Babcock Design 208.424.7675 800 W Main Street Ste. 940 Boise, ID 83702 www.babcockdesign.com 1 I L )T KEY PLAN PLANS AND ELEVATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND _ - PROVIDED TO GIVE AN INDIC 191 -0„ t - ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, BULK - E. MAGI E F Ma N C VIEW CIR. - - LOAD f oo'-0' s d PP _ 26, 0' ' I 4'_a - - - - - o - _a, rr•-p, _a 6•-p' g o 4'-a 4'-0' 0O- ��- 6• p. ■ 6'-a'STRE 0"LANDSCAPIN 0 � o -0"SIDEWAL • • a o N 9' -0' 100'-0' b b • E CURITY o CNIC GALE3C I PICKLEBALL COURT I 25TORY AND PARTIAL 2 STORY SINGLE FAMd" 0"LANDSCAPING LIGHTER COLOR INDIC^TE° ' -0'SIDEWAL s1NGLEsroer PQRrION Gr 2r-p, tool-or a'GARAG a r 61 b '-0"LIVIN ih �s b _ ob DOG PARK Ug FUSE ' PROPERTY LINE 6'-0"BYRE hO TOR P/,R(BIU R�TROOMS . PARKING 2,000 S.F.LIVABLE '-0"LANDSCAPIN 5,136 SF BEAUTIFULLY - D SETBACK 460 S.F. GARAGE S' OPEN SPACE + - + ' ARTIAL 2 STORY FRONT YARD SETBACK -0"SIDEWALI :FALL CO - - ® 88888 ❑- ® PER TN-R ALLEY LOADED P6 J*bRSESH SIDE YARD SET " ® POOL C SINGLE FAMILY b ® m STREET LOADED ® 0 00'-0" (24) UNITS • PO • 12'-a '-0"GARAG ARD S BAC • z7' o' b '-0"LIVIN 0"SETBAC - 0 S.F. LOT b o R YARD b BACK - o PROPERTY LINE - 26'-0"$TREE d' 2100 S.F.LIVABLE 4'-0"LAN DSCAPING RR - 201_a' - 486 S.F. GARAGE 4'-0"SIDEWALI F - _ __ 12_0' i z FRONT YARD SETBACK p PER TN-R ALLEY LOADED "r - - 675S WELLS 4.74 ACRES + PROPERTY LINE / 715 S WELLS 6.33 ACRES + F 20'STREET SETBACK BUFFER TOTAL 11.07 ACRES o MEANDERING SIDEWALK 6755WELLS 715SWFILLS I50iuNI s MDR /TN-R MDR /TN-R PROPER Y L'NE �_ 'p, VEHICLE SECURITY GATE S 61 TOTAL U SANITAR! SEWER SECURITY KIOSK (61) 2 STORY UNITS 0 SHADED #95024469 6 r5T- ra 3j32 PARKING EXISTWN 0 // DOUBLE STALL GARAGES= (61) = 122 OPATH 0 DOUBLE DRIVEWAYS = (50) = 100 ♦ SCAPIN 6'-D CLUBHOUSE STALLS= 9 STREET VISITOR STALLS = 35 a TOTAL PARKING STALLS = 266 \ 20- WIDE SEWER LINE b > 4STALLS PER 3/4 BED UNITS= 244 __—_ _ _ #96008004 b -- ---- -E.- GENTRY-CIRCLE- a 6D 40'VISION TRIANGLE SUBDIVISION MAP BK52 PG4445 L - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ °J FUTURE OFFICE BUILDING 10' WIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES. _ ____.._ DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION 6' 19'-0' b'-0' 19'-0'19'-0' b'-0' 19'-0' T-0'S6'-0" 0 0 '. D AL IDE STRIP OF AiO0+-0�DPLAIN FUTURE 2 STORY OFFICE BUILDING 8,960 S.F. 00 YEA FL -PDF'LAI , REQUIRED PARKING 2/1000 S.F.=20 STALLS C a FUTURE _ b a 2STORY .'� - - __ - - MEANDERING SIDEWALK PARKING PROVIDED 40 STALLS o b m OFFICE PROVIDED RATIO=4.5/1000 BUILDING ADDITIONAL S'WIDE STRIP 8,960 S.F. OF LAND BOTH SIDES OF 6'- Y FLOOD W AY -0' - IRRIGATION DRSIAN TDRICT 955 S WELLS ST s N o a MAINTENANCE EASEMENT 4.56 0 o DUMPSTERS ACRES MU-N NR PERMANENT CONTINUATION --- WE ARE REQUESTING AN OF MICROPATH FOOTPRINT3 STORY ALLOWABLE 30 000 S.F. FOOTPRINT INCREASE FROM 20,000 SF TO 30,000 SF -0 29/32' ASSISTED LIVING UNITS (67) 1 BED WE ARE PROPOSING (6) 2 BED NICELY LANDSCAPED • w 1 COMMON OPEN SPACE 1 MEMORY CARE UNITS W (13) 1 BED IN LIEU OF THE 80 S.F. AT $ (5) 2 BED THE UNIT DECKS O (91) TOTAL UNITS b Z (102) TOTALBEDS SOUTH ENT NAMPA O �� `MERIO ATION DISTRICT NURSING AND RESIDENTIAL o' - DUMP LOSURE CARE FACILITY PARKING 8' TOTAL BEDS 102(0.5) _ 51 TENANT STALLS REQUIRED O UL D• dFb OOG 51 COVERED TENANT STALLS (10 GARAGES+ 40 COVERED PARKING) IS O Q p❑ I 'p; 50 VISITOR AND STAFF STALLS ❑ 109 TOTAL STALLS PROVIDED (51 REQUIRED) A ❑ `') t: 8. 0 46.8%OF STALLS COVERED - 19 6- 19'-a UNIT DENSITY 1 15.63 ACRES TOTAL PROJECT AREA WITH A I • . 10 UNIT/ACRE BLENDED MAXIMUM o MDR/TN-R 8 UNITS /ACRE MAXIMUM MU-N /TN-R 12 UNITS /ACRE MAXIMUM o -11 1 2STORY UNITS 61 3 STORY e 10 o � 4 30,000 S.F. FOOTPRINT (80) 1 BED O• (11) 2 BED Ti�fuGE � q N B � p G ❑D • 0 C URTYARD m o b 0®0 � At LOT A= 680,623 S.F. ( Ilk 10' -p ROVIDED= 16.096 > 10°6 REQUIR :I AM S REQUIRED 4 d PROVIDED 9 'yam b 1. CLUBHOUSE 2. OPEN GRASSY AREAS AT LEAST 50'x100' rn PROPERTY LINE 3. COKOrUNITY GARDENS PARKING.STALLS SID AL 4. POND. WATER FEATURES ` 40'VISION .8'-- TY A SHADING :0 5. WALKINC&RAILS i CUL-D C b AIRKING STR 6, SPORTS COURTS I. KLE BALL VISION AND BOCCE BALL \ O- m TRIANGLE 7. PICNIC AREAS /• ;,� - 8. DOG PARK SALON Amok b �1 MERIDIAN,WELLS STREEr „ , 56 . Designmml Babcock o ! - EMagieViewGir �� ' i 4 E Magic View¢i m D t n - a y ' a ' 0 I� I FF A , l �i 27� 0 . '� A