Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC - Letter to City Council May 10,2024 City of Meridian Attn: Mayor and City Council Members 33 E Broadway Suite 102 Meridian, ID 83642 via email only to:shersh@meridiancity.org RE: Rosalyn Subdivision, PFP H-2023-0056 Dear Mayor Simison and City Council Members, We, Brett and Julie Bingham, residents and business owners in the City of Meridian for the past 24 years, are writing to address the concerns raised by City Council and neighbors regarding our proposed residential development at 200 E. Rosalyn Drive. First, we would like to provide an overview of why we began this endeavor. Three years ago, we began to understand first-hand the pressing need for smaller housing in Meridian that we had been hearing about, especially for young professionals and retirees. Our daughter and son-in-law tried unsuccessfully for two years to purchase in Meridian, before having to redirect their search to Nampa where they found a home. We also envisioned creating a space where our aging mother could reside comfortably in a low-maintenance, single-level home. Our personal experiences, witnessing the scarcity of small, single-family homes in Meridian's housing market including the challenges faced by our young adult children, our young colleagues, and elders, in finding suitable homes in our beloved city, inspired us to take action. We concluded that a small infill project, such as we are proposing, would provide opportunities for home ownership to our returning young adults or retirees so they can continue to be part of the great Meridian community that they have loved. We lived in the existing home located at 200 E. Rosalyn Drive for almost two years while we were searching for a new home and navigating the housing boom and shortage. We are not professional developers, rather we are citizens whose aim is to help make a difference. Having been residents of the neighborhood,we value its history and natural beauty and wish to preserve the essence of our neighborhood in this development. Now, allow us to address the specifics of our project and respond to the concerns raised by our neighbors and City Council. • House Positioning and Tree Preservation: Our development was designed with the commitment to preserve as many of the five large beautiful trees on the property as possible, honoring their historical significance, and ensuring privacy and shade for future residents. The platted lot lines are straight, but the decision to position the house on Lot 2 at an angle in the conceptual building layout was driven by our intent to preserve the trees located at the front of the property. Trees located at the front of the property. • Fencing: While fencing is not mandated by our application, we intend to retain existing privacy fencing and enhance it where necessary to respect neighboring properties and ensure a cohesive aesthetic within the community, including adding fencing along the eastern property boundary as this is currently lined with electric and barbed wire fencing. Although we have not decided on whether to fence between homes, we intend to have the HOA responsible for all yard maintenance, flower beds, shrubs, trees, irrigation, and snow removal to ensure it is consistent among homes and maintained to an excellent standard. From Left to Right: View Facing Northwest;View Facing North;View Facing East • Sidewalk Improvements: We believe that the existing �. infrastructure adequately serves the neighborhood, offering safe pedestrian access to nearby amenities. After living in this home for almost two years, we did not find issue with the lack of sidewalks along Rosalyn Drive to Meridian Road. Much of the portion of 0.f' Meridian/Kuna Road closest to Rosalyn (shown in red on the image to : the right) is not yet developed for pedestrians or bikers but will be upon future redevelopment. Rather, we enjoyed walking north through the neighborhood to the commercial developments located between Calderwood and Overland which includes restaurants, dry cleaning, and an ice cream shop. • Addressing Neighbor Concerns: We met with over twenty neighbors over two separate meetings. We want to be good neighbors, so we diligently considered their concerns, met with city staff to discuss, then worked with our design team to come up with a revised plan that addresses concerns while being conscientious of costs and maintaining our original goals for the development.We believe our current proposal (shown below) is the best fit for the neighborhood and addresses concerns from our neighbors. The changes that were incorporated include: • Density: Based on feedback from the Planning and Zoning _ meeting,the project was reduced from seven smaller lots to six larger lots and from attached housing the detached ; housing, as shown below. Concerns were voiced at the _. Council meeting regarding congruency with the larger lots directly across the street from our property.' However, three of these lots were art of the original homesites so p - their lot sizes and style of these homes are out of character n . with the rest of neighborhood. There are 108 other homes surrounding our property. Removing the four large lots, the average lot size is .124 acres. Our average lot density is .122 acres/lot, which is a difference of 87 sq ft. or an 8 x10 area. -` Our project's density aligns with existing neighborhood standards. r SG G G ...� ' Q —4- 14, r. r 9 e. nor s r, r Ms �n E Original Proposal Revised(Current)Proposal • Home Size and Height: The home sizes have been reduced to range between 1300-1600 sq. ft, which is consistent with the sizes of neighboring homes. The height of the homes has been changed from two-story homes to a single level or story-and-a-half to maintain a less visible presence. By offering less square footage and number of bedrooms, the amount of people who reside in each home will lessen. • Parking: Each home has four off-street parking spots, comprising a two-car garage and a two-car parking pad. We feel that the considering the size of these homes, the concern for more than four parking spots per home will not be an issue. 1 Exhibit B provides a series of aerial photos that show phases of development in the neighborhood. • Common Drive: We are utilizing a hammerhead for emergency access, as shown in the depiction of the current proposal above, negating the need to use the common drive to the east. Siting the homes off of the common drive provides a quieter and more private neighborhood for residents. In addition,the hammerhead provides easier options to turn around which will provide access for mail service and trash management as outlined below. The hammerhead also meets all Fire Code standards. • Mail Service: The post office has agreed to the use of a central mail collection box and indicated the preferred location to be at the top of the hammerhead. This location is convenient, meets their regulations for forward motion of their vehicles, and offers mail carrier's protection from the main road while they are stepping out of the vehicle to deliver mail into the boxes. • Trash Management: We confirmed that the sanitation department will be able to utilize the common drive to collect trash bins for interior facing homes, reducing the number of bins lining Rosalyn Drive. • Schools: We understand the concern City Council has regarding the overcrowding of the schools in which this project lies. We lived within these exact school boundaries for many years with school aged children and know first-hand the challenge our schools face. However, we feel that the number and size of these homes limits the impact of adding school age children to these schools. • Annexation: While annexation of the former ACHD right-of-way would enhance certain Lr[S4r-+/•9730 e1 Lot Slx-+/•4730 of Len Sln.ef•437f>! , aspects of this project, our development remains viable even without it. As shown in the depiction to the right, even with removal of the annexation parcel we are able to include six lots that meet all the R8 dimensional standards. However, we feel that Lot 51x -+/.WSO,f Lot SI[r•♦/.U50 if our current proposal provides better lot lines for an appealing development, and it cleans up city boundaries by annexing this property M u b into the city limits. We firmly believe that our project is not only aligned with the neighborhood but also will provide a benefit to our community by providing much needed housing. We have actively engaged with stakeholders, listened to concerns,and made necessary adjustments to ensure that our proposal benefits all parties involved. Further modifications to our proposal or reductions to the number of homes will not only add costs to us for redesign, but will be a missed opportunity for much needed smaller housing options for those who wish to come back to, or remain, in Meridian. The neighbors who opposed this development already enjoy home ownership in Meridian and in our neighborhood. We are petitioning for those who don't. We respectfully request the City Council's consideration and approval of our project, which aims to fill a crucial gap in Meridian's housing market while enhancing the fabric of our community. Thank you for your time and consideration . Sincerely, s/ Brett and Julie Bingham Exhibit B History of the Neighborhood In this picture from 1992 you can see the original cul-de-sac which is what we are requesting •. annexation for. This shows the original 4 homes. In May 2005 another home was added onto the cul-de-sac. �Y f C In October 2006 the cul-de-sac was replaced with a through street and the Larkspur neighborhood was started. f z� y } In 2010 the neighborhood continued to be developed and one of the original lots was divided to produce a larger lot.