2022-07-20 Charles Covolo July 19, 2022
Charles L Covolo
6269 South Bosch Way
Meridian Idaho, 83642
City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave.,
Suite 102
Meridian Id 83642
Dear Mayor & City Council
Re: Impressive East Ridge Development Agreement Modifications, H-2020-0037 East Ridge
Subdivision
I am writing this letter to request the Meridian City Council to deny the Development
Agreement Modification to remove single-level limitation on single family residences within
Impressive East Ridge Subdivision No. 2 and No. 3 (Village Product Area) as submitted.
On October 19, 2017, four (4) citizens attended the Planning & Zoning Commission Public
Hearing and on November 28, 2017, thirty-eight (38) citizens attended the City Council Public
Hearing in opposition of the Annexation and Zoning (AZ) and Preliminary Plat (PP). Some of the
concerns raised by both public testimony and written testimony included:
• Additional Traffic
• Density of Overall Development
• Feasibility of Age-restricted Housing
• Transition from the Surrounding Neighborhoods and the Transition from the
Age-restricted Lots
• Concerns how the Blackrock Neighborhood were ignored by the Developer
Unfortunately, the Planning Commission and City Council voted to approve the 40.99-acre AR
and PP with R-4 and R-15 zoning districts without addressing the neighborhood concerns.
On June 5, 2018, the City of Meridian and DevCo, LLC entered into Development Agreement,
and on July 17, 2018, City Council approved the first Final Plat. The intent of the Agreement and
Final Plat is to set clear direction as to conditions, and expectations for what is to be built, along
with the confidence that what is proposed meets the intent of R-4 & R-15 zoning.
City of Meridian Med-High Density R-15 Design Considerations states the following:
"Residential developments should orient to surrounding uses, including residential and non-
residential areas, in a way that encourages compatible development patterns, character, and
appearances."
"Appropriately address the critical issues of site layout that influence a compatible and
integrated neighborhood character, including, but not limited to, vehicular access, pedestrian
connectivity, building orientations, and common spaces."
Development Agreement (H2017-0129) states "The applicant shall provide a master grading
plan and drainage plan for the site with the first final plat application."
The first Final Plat Application did not include a Master Grading Plan. The applicant submitted
drainage calculations, Conceptual Engineering Plan, Landscape Plan and Final Plat. The
Conceptual Engineering Plan showed existing ground elevations, lot layouts and street
locations, but there was no vertical design component other than a hinge line. Without
knowing proposed lot elevations there is no way to understand the vertical transition between
Village Lots and Estate Lots. Vertical transition is a critical component when determining lot
orientation, landscaping, fencing, and building setbacks.
Today Village Lots are upwards to, and in some locations greater than 13 ft. vertically above the
Estate Lots. Village houses are constructed within 10 ft. of the rear property line, and existing
fencing between lots is a 4 ft. open vision fence. Open vision fencing is typically used when lots
are adjacent to public right-of-way, open space, and public parks. It is hard to believe, and hard
to accept that something this blatantly wrong can get to this point. I've attached a picture (see
attached) of my backyard for you to see what I'm trying to describe. Would you consider this
meeting the R-15 Design Considerations of appropriately addressing the critical issues of site
layout that influence a compatible and integrated neighborhood character?
The application before you takes this already unbearable situation and makes it worse. This
application to remove single-level limitation on a single-family residence introduces changes to
roof lines, windows/lighting, and noise.
Because there is an average of a 13-foot vertical height difference from Estate Lots to Village
Lots and with a maximum roof height of 25 ft. creates a monotonous wall (38-foot) effect
concern. Today only one (1) house plan (Glendale) has a roof height of 25 ft. for the full width
of the house. This application proposes four (4) house plans (Glendale, Chandler, Pima and
Tempe) to have a 25 ft. roof height for nearly the full width of the house. If these houses were
constructed next to each other it would create a undesirable wall effect to Estate Lots Block 2,
Lots 3-16 & Block 3, Lots 19-21 (17 lots total).
The addition of Bonus Rooms/Bedrooms will have an increase in home occupants causing
increased noise from a small 10 ft. backyard. Because the existing condition between Village
Lots and Estates Lots is already intrusive, the addition of Bonus Rooms/Bedrooms will only
make it worse.
Bonus Rooms/Bedrooms with windows will also allow an additional location for neighbors to
look directly down into our yards and homes.
It is obvious that the existing situation between Village Lots and Estates Lots is not good and
does not align with the City of Meridian Med-High Density R-15 Design Considerations. I
believe the applicants proposed changes will only make things worse. I believe that the majority
of the issues being raised today are similar to the Transition from the Age-restricted Lots issues
raised by Blackrock neighbors in 2017. 1 also believe its not to late to make things correct by
including modifications as part of the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement.
Between now and the time of the Public Hearing I ask you to truly think about these concerning
issues which come to you as part of this application. At your convenience I invite you to visit our
home so you can see for yourself.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and thank you for considering the information
before you.
Sincerely
Charles L. Covolo
■■■■■■■■■■■■�L•�f17d� IL�11 c9■�■��.r-�-------------------------MMM------------7!!!!!N
�IC� d� LiGi oo
ter '.
7f'1_