Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic CommentsPage 1 of 1 Machelle Hill From: Matthew Ellsworth Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:40 AM To: Machelle Hill Cc: Sharon Smith; Will Berg; Sonya Watters Subject: FW: Amity /Linder property owner RECEIVRD JUL 2 5 2007 City Of kOf$ce Again, I'm not sure exactly who needs to get these, but here are some more South Meridian comments. Thanks, Matt Ellsworth Associate City Planner. Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 208.884.5533 From: JEFF LAURA FULLMER [mailto:FULLMER143@MSN.COM] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:35 PM To: Matthew Ellsworth Subject: Amity /Linder property owner Matt, I own 23 acres off of Amity Rd. between Linder and Ten Mile. I bought the property with the intent to divide and develop it into one acre home sites. I am anxiously awaiting decisions by the city regarding density issues (lot size restrictions), annexation into the city, as well as the having the ability to put in our own septic systems and wells. Having the option of septic and well systems would greatly expedite our development process. Please include me in any emails you send regarding these issues. Sincerely, Jeff Fullmer 7/25/2007 _ hJ'h. . _0 MAY 2 9 2007 T G ��'Y 01 MERIDIAN o whom it May concern, ! j FPS My name is Dan van Urouw, and 1 own and operate a dairy farm in Meridian. 1 recently realized that the comprehensive plan for South Meridian has some new changes. I spoke with Matt Ellsworth at the planning department, and he recommended that I write a letter to Mayor de Weerd and the planning commission addressing my concerns. I plan to attend the workshop on May 31, but I would like you to consider my situation prior to the workshop. My main concern is the area that you call Neutraceutical Overlay. I are confused with the definition of this term and the area that was chosen. 1 realize that your intentions are to protect agriculture and open space, but I believe that for this particular area it is too late to have agricultural land set aside. When I spoke with Matt Ellsworth, he admitted to me that he had never driven through this area. There are a lot of houses and developments being built. As a result, my dairy operation will be extremely difficult to manage with such little land available for crops and spreading manure. There are still some small fields being aimed but not in a profitable way. In October of''On4T , l built a new dairy facility on Simco Road near Mountain Home. 1 also purchased 2,600 acres of farm ground preparing for my expansion because there is no possibility of expanding where I am presently located. If my 242 acres that are included in the Neutraceutical Overlay Zone are designated non -development, my property would be extremely devalued. This would cause loaning institutions to be unwilling to finance me. Also, if the property surrounding my operation is developed, it would be impossible for me to continue to dairy here and would be a huge financial adversity and hardship. 1 hope that you will take my concerns seriously. if you have any questions my home phone number is (208)887-9259 or my cell is (208)861-4425. Also, my email is danvangrouw@earthlink.net.�i����� d�1 CA R 3 C q.2 Thank you, Cloon"I Pagel of 2 Machelle Hill From: Matthew Ellsworth Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:18 AM To: Sharon Smith; Machelle Hill Cc: Sonya Watters Subject: FW: South Meridian Staff Response Comments JUL 1 t 2007 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office I'm not exactly sure who these need to go to, but here are some comments on the South Meridian CPA. Please let me know if additional follow up is needed. Thanks, Matt Ellsworth Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 208.884.5533 From: Don Roberts [mailto:droberts@terra-mgmt.com] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 3:26 PM To: Matthew Ellsworth Cc: 'Ryan Arnold' Subject: South Meridian Staff Response Comments U. iwauriew misworin Re: City of Meridian South Comprehensive plan study Comments: I wanted to begin by telling Staff I appreciate them trying to take the time to gather comments from the landowners/stake holders in this area. I attended the last public meeting and was able to glean some good information to help me think thru their proposed changes to the original final draft. While I can see some of the issues that staff brought up and it was very help full to have them explain how they made their decisions I am still concerned about the very low density designation. One of my concerns is there are a lot of unanswered specifics that I think should be addressed so stake holders understand what this would mean for the property. For example: ❑ When talking to CDHD it sounds like the average lot size that can accommodate a septic is 3 acres. My experience with CDHD is that every site is specific and that some sites may not be able to accommodate this. That puts these landowners at a signification disadvantage versus just waiting for development to bring city services to the area. ❑ There was nothing that addressed what the impact of roughly 1600 shallow wells would do to the water table in this area. Idaho has yearly issues with water and adding that many wells to this area may make it impossible for these lots to develop. This really hasn't been addressed by anyone that I have talked too. ❑ The traffic study that was done by ACHD seems very flawed. To not consider the impact of Nampa and Kuna when putting this together seems like a huge piece missing. I understand Staff's stance that they tried to reduce density and even with doing that some intersection's failed. I guess I am not convinced that is the correct approach. Seems like the plan for roads out there may be considerable underestimated. And that the major corridors may need to be increased in size to accommodate the traffic that will inherently come for the growth of this metro area. I think by just reducing the number of rooftops is only a small solution to a problem that will come up regardless. Kuna will surely maximize their new sewer plant which is right at the border of this proposed comprehensive area. 7/11/2007 Page 2 of 2 ❑ Appropriate transitions are a huge issue with this proposal. I still can't get my head around transitioning from High Density or Medium High Density residential directly to Very Low Density. This seems to just penalize a landowner that clearly could connect to services by giving them no option along with abutting to VERY opposing land uses. They don't even remotely relate to each other. I can understand taking an area of this comp plan and transitioning from the higher land uses with reasonable transitions to the very low density but to put one high use next to one low use is clearly not a benefit to the low use property owner. He has no option if designated very low density while clearly he could receive services from the city. Seems like in this situation a more appropriate transition should be made so then the land owner can make the decision on how to use his property in the future. I think the fact is this is a high growth metro area and over the next 10 years most these properties will have planted their last crop. Which will be homes. I think appropriate transitions are vital. An example is the recent article in the statesman (http://www.idahostatesman_.com/lQcaln_ews/sto_ry_/89401_.html) where a apartment complex was approved several years ago in Lochsha falls but when final Platt approval came up a lot of neighbors where upset and these where neighbors on medium density zoning. While in this case I agree with the city that the apartments should have been approved since the zone changes had been done years before I want to point out the huge out cry by the neighbors with really a one step change in zone. This comp plan in many instances proposes a 3 step change in zoning between two properties. While people should be aware it shows that landowners next to high density residential that transitions directly to very low density will be negatively affected. ❑ Properties south of Mason Creek it seems that Meridian doesn't want to serve these. In this case why not let these properties work with Kuna since they could clearly serve these properties with their new sewage treatment plant going just south of this area. I think many of these properties mine included would prefer taking services from Meridian but I think most would rather go to Kuna versus not having the option with Meridian. Possibly an idea for this area would be to put in some transitions and propose a R- 2 zone to create a buffer with Kuna with some of the properties to the south closer to the border. ❑ The largest area of the very low density area that goes out toward McDermott probably makes the most sense to transition the very low density of any of the area. While I am not completely sold on this designation from the standpoint of most people can't maintain 3 acres and I think it will look very trashy down the road if there was an area that made sense transitioning to that area makes the most sense. Since there could be some challenges moving services that direction although I think development could address the cost of those challenges. Also there are just so many unanswered questions with that designation. I am guessing that Ada County would have to approve of it prior to being able to develop without being annexed. I wasn't clear if they had committed to approve the plan with this designation or not. I know staff has discussed but I didn't get a feel that they would approve the comp plan as is. These concerns above spell out some of my thoughts and hopefully constructive ideas to staff. Hopefully staff will consider this not as a rant against what they proposed but some serious concerns and thought out ideas on some areas I think should be considered. This is a huge undertaking and can affect many lives. I know staff recognizes this from talking to them and appreciate their willingness to be available for questions. Sincerely, Don Roberts and Ryan Arnold Properties in the comp plan owned: 5340 S Blackcat Meridian ID — 23 Acres 6152 W Victory Rd Nampa ID — 38 Acres 7/11/2007 'RECEIVEJ) APR 0 5 2002 k-AiY OF MERIDIAN To: Meridian City Planning and Zoning I am the owner of Ultra Touch Car Wash in Meridian, and would like to request that the Planning and Zoning Committee reevaluate the planning departments recommendation for "Medium High Density Residential" and change it to "Mixed Use Commercial Zoning" on approximately 3.3 acres of property that I own, located at 2075 and 2155 W. Franklin Road. My property is adjacent to Larry Van Hess' mixed use commercial development. See attachment #1. I purchased this property in December 2005 and January 2006 with the intent to develop it with retail and office use. We had our first preliminary meeting with the City Planning Depaartment on May 8, 2006. At that time Richard Kartchner, the engineer, and Larry Sundell, the architect, and myself met with the planners. See attachment #2. We received recommendations and comments from the planners so we moved forward with the engineers and architect, drawing plans and engineering the project. Again we had a meeting with the City Planners on August 7, 2006, to show them our design. At that time, Kevin McCarthy, with Toothman-Orton Engineering Co., and myself met with the planners. We showed them our preliminary site plan, which resulted in comments and suggestions from the Planning Department. See attachment #3. Then on December 13, 2006, we had another meeting with the City Planners after we found out that there was a charrette completed involving the Ten Mile Area Land Plan Use. We were never informed of this meeting, therefore we were not involved. As a result the proposed land use for this property is now designated "Medium High Density Residential". We feel that we went through the proper steps to start this development and now feel like the rug has been pulled out from underneath us with this zoning issue. We hope you will reconsider our request as we've spent a lot of time and money working on this project. We feel that adding retail and office space across the street from the SSC Trash Transfer Station would be better suited for this area more than a residential development. Sincerely, Steve Bainbridge 4/5/2007 ING WAhKM 15 RE maPERN O IDDIN 4WIDN ENgNEE= Co_ " ti� FRANKLIN ROAD DEVELOPMENT TOOTHMAN—ORTON ENGINEERING COMPANY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AHD PEANNEpS EXISTING FEATURES AND TOPO a ueo�K YAK:max[: ((Yal �Y3-vee court a',uEnE. m»1G (YDlJ 1YJ-LIN PREcAPPLICAMON MEF'T71 I ATr��rc - � -Of f1_-� AAolicantlsl: 4 E C � Mv-r-n1��/4 _r 4r .L...,a Staff: Ptoposed Develop t: i r' Location. 1 W - A-rr Required Applications. Existing Zoning. _ (, Propo ed Zoning. 'Comprehensive Plan, Designation:, Q,�,� . M-,Ys - „en EaLUM v Property ' e: Number of Unity DweWng Type: d Sewer: 'Water: (�3 Pressu:tized Irrigation: '_ ,� .Street buffers: — -- Open Space & Micropaths: Landscape Plan:k,EI47- .Lot Size & Frontage: y Topography- -Hydrology - Street System: Pathway System. - - Annexation Rezone -- Conditional Use Permit - Q 'Variance 0 Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Coenprehmsive Plan Amendment ® Application Checklist Review Other Agencies to Additional Pre -application Conference: -�_ Not reconvnended Recommended Required Anticipated Suhrrlission Date. Anticipated Planning & zoning Date: :zu04nonal OtL ------------------- forraott'on provided during thi rnretin� it based upn�r the currant C' Srrbdevirie» Ordincv and appb'm61r Comprsbr>s rivr Plan and it valid3 oirnhr ff apt Zoning p¢ tbairs to the ZorrinB or subdivas{Qn Cjrdrnance ar Co rAry subrrguent •t,� mprebenrir� Pdo>r may a•�. yo,T �licatiou. .. ,..... •... :::.. ,'••it.7� .=i.'.1�.� :• ••L.°'f.:i•• •\: •;+•,s •2`: ,i` :•,ty : s.', --•j�t'T. •i;• W71—f eg -IQ' DATE Appllicajjt(s), AJ VIA 19 (,,C- S ta -t-f- propose,j De-,, Z- __j ,�Pln ell t: Location: -Kc'I'dr "APP"Catio-ris: A-- in __ Existing Zoning. VII _ Ik Proposed Zo Comptello-nsive Pjan. Designatio, ning: M , CUAJO 11 Property,SL7,: Number of Units: Sewer: Dvreffing Type: Water: Pressurized Irrigation: Street BIJ. Ffers.. -- Open Space & NNECropaths: Landscape Plan: ------------- 1,()t Size &, .Frontage: Topography': Hydrology: -- Street System: P2tl'WaY System: Other Mlications Ad Annexation Rezone Conditional Use Permit ------------ Variance Lot Line Adjustment El ColuprehensiN-e Plan 0 Application Checklist Review Othcrr4>encies to Contact: Additional Pre -application Conference: _..X____ Not reconlintrided Re-or-runended Anticipated Submission Date: Requireci _%'Iticipated Planning & Zoning Date: Additional Notes: 0 IL_ //7 V-S dU-, q5o.,r �'be C-;y W/v C P117 ,11 d ar fo -.71;;r34w?!tIjj-. or Naa ;*d