HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Michael & Meredith Huebschmann
12 December 2006
RECEIVEF>
DEe 1 2.2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN
(:'1" CLERK OFr=rCE
2328 W. Whitelaw Dr.
Meridian, ill 83646
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ill 83642
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing this letter to express our concerns about the proposed Sundial subdivision. As
homeowners immediately adjacent to the development, we are particularly aware of the way in
which it may affect both the value of our property and the nature of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Our over-arching concern is the type of residential zoning being requested by Gemstar Properties
LLC. Our understanding is that he has asked for the zoning to be changed to R8. This would be
a substantial departure from all of the surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, within the vicinity
bounded by Linder, Ustick, Ten Mile, and Cherry Roads the only area zoned R8 is the Tully
Cove subdivision; everything else is zoned R4. Tully Cove, with its duplexes and direct access
to/from Linder Road, is truly its own distinct community. Such would not be the case with the
Sundial subdivision, as the developer's plan calls for single-unit homes. Also, the only ingress
and egress routes are through the Turtle Creek subdivision. Anyone who lives outside of the
neighborhood would understandably assume Sundial is a continuation of Turtle Creek. We are
of the opinion that the Sundial subdivision should be zoned R4, as doing so will maintain
consistency with the general area.
When attending the developer's open-air meeting this past autumn, many Turtle Creek
homeowners communicated their displeasure with the tentative platting contained in the
proposal. Gemstar assured us the map that had been mailed to us was for illustrative purposes
only, and that our concerns would be addressed by the time the plan was presented to the city
planners. A review ofthe current map in the City Planner's office just a few days ago, however,
revealed that the developer had made no changes to the plan other than to postpone the
development of two lots until Phase 2. The current plan is identical to the original in every other
respect. This perceived lack of responsiveness calls into question the developer's sincerity and
willingness to work constructively with the existing homeowners.
We are especially disappointed that the developer continues to propose situating three very small
lots so close to our subdivision - one to the east of the cuI de sac on Whitelaw Drive, and another
just beyond the present northern terminus of Mar burg Drive. Although we understand the
location of the tower places constraints upon plot layout elsewhere in the proposed development,
we can think of no legitimate reason for creating such small lots in those particular areas. The
Commission should require Gemstar to combine the pair of lots on the west side of the
development into one, larger lot. Also, the development of the small lot in Phase 1 (east of
Huebschmann: Sundial Subdivision
2
the Whitelaw Dr. cui de sac) should be postponed until Phase 2, and then combined with
the adjoining small lot in Phase 2.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Sundial proposal, and we trust our concerns
and suggestions will be considerecf with all due seriousness and courtesy.
Sincerely,
~-muud~C/)I ~cL~
/~~~-<
'-I / /(
Michael Huebschmann
Meredith Huehschmann