HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-03 Maralee Turner
Charlene Way
From:Maralee Turner <maraleeturn@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 3, 2025 8:25 PM
To:Clerks Comment
Subject:public comments for Farrington Heights
Attachments:pine_adkins_intersection_building.jpg
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
My home borders the proposed subdivision of Farrington Heights. I am not opposed to the land
development, IF it is approached respectfully and thoughtfully. I propose that a respectful compromise
should be reached before this development is allowed to proceed. That the developers have had to
postpone and restructure over the course of several months indicates that this development is far from
reaching a beneficial conclusion for its bordering neighbors.
Currently, the developer is petitioning for higher density and taller homes than is prudent for the
inadequate space. I am opposed to the rezoning of this small plot from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district,
which is MUCH too dense for the location. The surrounding properties are all zoned for a lower density
than the proposed Subdivision. The developers are also expecting and planning for two story houses,
which will be detrimental to ALL neighbors, on ALL sides, with the expectation of the homeowners who
are selling the property, as the developers are proposing green space to purposely offset the impact for
them. While the developers may indicate, with photos and words, that one story homes are being
considered, there is no plan for single level homes bordering our neighborhood, which has been a
concern for months now. In fact, according to Matthew Parks, “The proposed lots will accommodate
second story residences in order to make financial sense.” I disagree wholeheartedly.
By rezoning this land, and approving the current plan, the developers will be enabled to build several new
dwellings, with denser and taller homes than virtually all of its bordering sides in all directions. A height
restriction of 20 feet is reasonable for this insufficient space. A height restriction of 28 feet, which
Meridian City is considering, would be appalling for us as neighbors. The proposed development belongs
in a space of about 5-6 acres, not a mere almost 3 acres. Our homes have existed for nearly 30 years and
we value our way of live. A development such as this will impact many families adversely for decades.
Please plan for buffers or green space on all sides of the development, which may mean putting the
access road around the outskirts of the development and planning for green spaces bordering that road.
Two story homes, looming over our backyards will negatively impact our ability to even remotely enjoy
spending time in our yards. That is understandably very distressing to us as homeowners.
Another concern is traffic issues. Even if the developers are required to widen Adkins, the intersection at
Pine and Adkins is already dangerous. The existing building located at the Pine/Adkins intersection will
not be removed and this poses a danger as the intersection will remain narrow, despite the required
marginal widening. (See Photo)
Please do not be neglectful, deceitful, disrespectful, and careless. I hope that developers, city planners,
and architects can be kind, resourceful, and prudent as they look for solutions that would benefit
existing land owners as well as future ones.
1
v
�I
l
T
. 1 �
r
t.
P '
dd
l •�
IN —AMC
-
1 - -
i
_ r
` t 1 tt � �a , •y .
�, �� ':Ir1 I . . �: \ Yrl� � ♦ � +c. y��, v, 1 . . rl �-• t .:- Q ^ i� v Fe 'L
41-1
qIII.
-{ IPilk
3 f
- I od - .. _ • `rY -- - - - - - - - _ - - - '_b\� -' .lam _ ;tea _ .. `�L r.>
Ip
dtr
If IIf
If
IF
IF
_ r , \
'141 _ 0 _ l
CIL• '+ ..
dI
r. Sr _ _ _ - .\ .a•�J I n"
'1y,0
f 1 -y-• • ' r L IIff
y -
.: '.
y A
v 1 . ' . 1 1 - �L O p
' 4
y J - -Y
... . _ ].
C - - I-
LL
IIkx S ip 1 .
_q- cG .r. C -`1
mot' - CI, h Y. i Y . \ :\• . . _
r _ i
ya j�
Ir CIA
2 .
] 1 • O
11 ~ I . ... •,y-. A C - �•�.' •�`•}' ' _ 'l
ti .tom . 1 t - . c s - .•1ar- rC a -- �C. � }. � _ _ .. _ _ _ \
c : C Z -
C ♦-If
S s
iIIIC
CA
l. 1
-. .n _ - . v`� r. r �. '.- !' .. • - _. -�tr . - . ♦ 1 � ' - -�L _ cam