HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Christopher Broer
RECEIVED
SEP 1 1 2006
Opposition to the proposed Ashtyn Park annexation AZ 06-034
Public Hearing, Meridian City Council, September 12, 2006
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
The Meridian City Council was correct to deny the applicant in 2005 when a similar request for a
Limited Office District was proposed, and they should again deny the applicant. I've lived off
Meridian Road in the Waterbury Park subdivision, less than a half mile south ofthe parcel, for
over 13 years. When our subdivision was built, the existing comprehensive plan called for this
parcel to be developed as "church" and residential land. The new comprehensive plan in 2002
continued that approach, keeping it public/quasi-public and residential. Since public/quasi-
public is defined in Chapter VII of the 2002 comprehensive plan as including churches, the intent
was to maintain the plan ofleaving that non-residential part ofthe parcel as available for either a
new church or a continuation ofthe church adjacent to the west. The intent wasn't for any of the
other uses of public/quasi-public. Please allow the parcel to be annexed only in accordance with
the 2002 comprehensive plan and its predecessor plan solely as residential and church use (quasi-
public/public in the 2002 version, "church" in the prior version).
Last year the applicant ironically cited "heavily traveled" Ustick and Meridian Roads as a reason
to allow the parcel a heavier traffic use than keeping it as residential and church use. Though the
neighboring church may have occasional events, an L-O property would have a greater average
daily traffic impact. The applicant additionally stated that because the nearby park and church
generate traffic his parcel should be able to do so as well, but that was not an appropriate
justification, because the true comparison should be what traffic the parcel would generate as
currently in the comprehensive plan (residential or church) versus what it would generate as a
6am to lOpm L-O complex (as he has requested). After all, the church and the park were built.
where a church and a park were called for, whereas for this parcel no similar amount of traffic
was envisioned as part of either comprehensive plan. One plus of the current plan is that church
traffic, after all, predominately occurs on non-work days.
For the applicant to have stated last year that because an adjacent park, which was zoned to be a
park, generates noise beyond 7am to 7pm as a reason his parcel shouldn't be subject to a 7am to
7pm limitation if the parcel is approved isn't a proper analogy. The parcel in question isn't
ph~.nned as a park, but as residential and quasi-public, so the noise comparison should be the
parcel as offices to that of its currently planned-for use as homes and a church. To have further
stated last year that he's heard lawn mowers from nearby homes operating after 7pm also isn't a
valid comparison, because lawn mowing noise is a normal part of living in a residential area. As
Mr. Hood of the planning staff stated at last year's P &Z hearing, 7 am to 7pm is a standard
condition, and is there to be consistent in parcels under three acres adjacent to residential areas.
In conclusion, the applicant acknowledged at last year's planning and zoning hearing that it's
"unclear what direction future development ofthe neighboring properties" will go. My family is
concerned that allowing an office complex on this parcel as an exception to the comprehensive
plan will only encourage further higher density in our neighborhood and cause more R-4 housing
to be replaced with higher traffic-generating light office, for example. I'm just one neighbor, but
I thought I would share my concerns. Thank you for your consideration and for listening.
Christopher Broer, 387 West Woodbury Drive