Public Testimony (Opposition) PZTIBURON MEADOWS HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION
December 9, 2013
To Whom It May Concern:
I, Cindie Green, Tiburon Meadows Home Owners Association President, do hereby authorize Phil
Zaluska, to be a public speaker on behalf of our subdivision, Tiburon Meadows, at the public hearing
scheduled for 12/19/13, in regards to the re-zoning of the empty lot on Sheryl Drive.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions concerning this matter.
Thank you.
~ti
Chi . _.:_~. G
-'r
\~~
Cindie Green
President
Tiburon Meadows HOA
208-908-6489
RECEIVE
~~ 122013
CITY OF ~~"
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
.~
TIBURON MEADOWS HOME ONERS ASSOCIATION
c~ K --
~~L _ Q p, 3Q~S-u/,.SGierYC ~V~,
`~~~~ ~z~~ 306 ~ ~v ,~~ ~ ~.
The following residents of Tiburon Meadows strongly oppose the rezoning of
lot #1 of Tiburon Meadows subdivision.
~~~
~C`r/ r ~R..7~ ~GG~t~-E~ / z 5 Fl N ~Sx-~--" ;7 l
~~, ~d~
JaU~a ~ ~
~~
~3 ~ W ' .Sa,•~tii
~~~
~~,9
0~8 w. S ~~`~~
~~ ~~,.~a ~r~~ 3
' ' J c~~~
C..~Cwr~
I,~-1w,~
U
/~ ~ .~ c` ~ifJ
~~ ~ ~~~~~
~~
~3~ ~
r. -~
~~ '~~:._
~~ - l ~~I ~- v~~~ ~''Y
. ~~~~
~~ ~ ~ ~
r~na ~~~ S~ ~~~G
/'
~Z N ,~ ilk ~v.~ is tr-ilk'
„~ i~~
~..
~k
--~ <~-~
~ 0
n ~~ ~~/!^
/3 %G .(~ ~~ / ~ /
~~ .~3 ~ v
~a~~~ ~`~
_ ,ate s /~! ~/r~+'- Gt~~. y .glen ~~~ 8~'Y2
~a,~,~,~ a~ ~na.r~,~ 3cr,~l ~ 5h~s~1 0~. rr~ ~~~ ,~c~~-c~$~y-
~,,~ •~ ~a~- fj,,uQ t 2ss" N ~ 1
~,,,~ ~ l ~ _ ~3 0 ~ S to I, ~ ~,,, A ,,~J Q, .
v_.
.>
~ ~ ,;
J a
~ ~ ~. ~ ~ e
~ ~" ~- c~~~~~L~~~- ~~
~~ ~ ~ -
R ~
/~ ,-J, ,, ~/,/ 3 /~
.,,~'1/ ~UC~' ~"~E~ G ~C.t.~ L~~ r `l ~il/~~ , ~ ~i,~''2"~ ~ ~1/ ~CJ'~~i ~, ,~
~y t./ ~`,~/ .
~ f.
e~~~ ., ~ ,
~V " ~~~W `rte' i V ~ ~jV J~ ,~ ~V I ~~~~ ~/ {~ / /{/~~' `~VV~~ A
! /
~~~~ cat-(~~~~~' , o~ (/~,1,~ ~' L ~ /~
~~~v~C~~f.e.QCr~ i
' ~ ~~~~~
~. ~L~
~ ~ ~ ~..~~~~~~ L~1a
~~~
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
E ~~~~~ Keith Bird
~^•- Brad Hoaglun
Charles Rountree
'' ~ David Zaremba
~_ a,(~
~~
~''•
,~.
,,~, '" ::,.'„~~MiTTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON
'DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To ensure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your
comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall
Attn: Jaycee Holman, City Clerk, by: 12-Dec-13
Transmittal Date: November 21, 2013 File No.: RZ 13-017
Hearing Date: December 19, 2013
Request: Public Hearing: Rezone of 0.54 of an acre of land from the L-O to the TN-R zoning district
for Sheryl 4-Plex
By: JTC Inc, or Assigns
Location of Property or Project: 3150 W. Sheryl Drive
Joe Marshall (No FP) Meridian School District {No FPj ~, ~/3t/~il/ /y~~OG{IS
Scott Freeman (No FP)
Steven Yearsley (No FP)
Michael Rohm (No FPj
Macy Miller (No FP)
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Charlie Rountree, C/C
Brad Hoaglun, C/C
Keith Bird, C/C
David Zaremba C/C
Sanitary Services
Building Department /Rick Jackson
Fire Department
Police Department
City Attorney
Community Development
City Planner
Parks Department
Economic Dev.
City Engineer
Meridian Post Office {FP/PP/sHP only)
Ada County Highway District
Ada County Development Services
Central District Health
COMPASS (Comp Plan only)
Nampa Meridian irrig. District
Settlers irrig. District
Idaho Power Co. {FP,PP,cuP/SHP only)
QW@St (FP/PP/SHP only)
Intermountain Gas {FPiPP/sHP only)
Idaho Transportation Dept. {No FP)
Ada County Ass. Land Records
Downtown Projects:
Meridian Development Corp.
Historical Preservation Comm.
South of RR / SW Meridian:
NW Pipeline
New York Irrigation District
Boise-Kuna Irrigation District
Boise Project Board of Control /Tim Page
~2~s~oE,v~
T.6/E
,Co7J/
City Clerk's Office • 33 E. Idaho Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 208-888-4433 •Fax 208-888-4218 • www.meridiancity.org
/~uJ,~/~S' %~,~B.E' - - - ~ •c~k ,~ T~#~'`_LoT ~ ~~ ~7'Cvo UL..~
~~iP,~~ o~~ SUB~i~~s~o~ • ~ , ~LE,~S~
December 2, 2013
City of Meridian, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
33 East Broadway Ave.
Meridian ID 83642
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in regard to the application to re-zone an acre of land from the L-O to the TN-R
zoning district for SHERYL 4-PLEX located at 3150 W. Sheryl Drive. I reviewed the application
and found an error in Number 6 where it states, "...where a substantial number of the single-
family residences within 300' of this site are not owner-occupied." Of all the residences in the
Tiburon Meadows Subdivision within 300', all of them ARE owner-occupied and this statement
is in error. I happen to be one of those owners at 3054 W. Sheryl Drive and am in opposition to
the proposed development of this 4-plex. This is an extremely small parcel of land and I do not
feel a development of this sort can be supported on such a small piece of property. With the
newest development on the opposite corner (the showroom for Coleman Homes), the visibility
on this corner is already decreased and with this proposal of another two story development on
the above corner, I am concerned about trying to get out onto Ten Mile Road. This corner is
already extremely busy and it is rather difficult to get out, especially when trying to make a left
turn to access the on ramp to the freeway from Ten Mile. Since the proposed 4-plex is meant
for families, I am also concerned that this is an extremely busy corner for children to be trying
to cross or playing that near the street. I feel that this lot is just much too small and too close
to Ten Mile for such a proposal.
I am unable to attend the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on December 19, 2013 to
testify against this proposal, so I am submitting this written material in lieu of my testimony.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this.
Si erely ,
~•
Ju A. Strike
3054 W. Sheryl Drive
Meridian, ID 83642
~Mr~ ~-p~e~ l
I~~ ~q
December 2, 2013
City of Meridian,laycee Holman, City Clerk
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian ID 83642
Re: RZ 13-017
I am the president of the Homeowners Association of Tiburon Meadows. I am more than 300 feet from
the vacant lot in question, but I am one of 42 homeowners impacted by this proposed re-zoning.
I understand that by law, only those residents within the "impact zone" are officially notified on these
matters, but you may or may not be aware that anything that happens on Sheryl Avenue impacts ALL of
the residents of Tiburon Meadows, since it is the ONLY access and egress for our little subdivision.
Our further concern is how to protect our Homeowners Association if the residents of the proposed
apartments decide to try to use our common area for a playground for any children living there.
There are playgrounds and parks close by, and we are not equipped or prepared for our grounds to be
used for a play area. What do we have to do to protect our residents from being sued if someone gets
hurt using our facility?
One of the statements made in the letter proposing this rezoning states that the majority of the homes
within 300' of the vacant property are not owner-occupied. This is SO not true. All of the homes on
Sheryl Avenue are owner-occupied.
The proposal for the use of the property includes a "play area". It looks like that is a very small area that
is close to Ten Mile. If children lose a ball or toy outside the fence and try to retrieve it, they could be
tempted out onto a VERY busy road, especially during rush-hour.
The fence is another concern for us. As homeowners we have invested in good vinyl fencing. I know it is
more expensive than chain-link or wire fencing, but we feel it should at least compare to what is already
in place in the neighborhood.
I would invite any and all members of the zoning board to come into our neighborhood between 3:00
and 6:00 PM, and try to turn left onto Ten Mile. Driving north on Ten Mile, and trying to turn into our
neighborhood during those hours, is also a hazard. We all have had near-misses when northbound
drivers get impatient about leaving our intersection open. It isn't a pretty picture.
Thank you for considering our concerns about the plans for this vacant lot, but putting another big
building on that corner is NOT a good plan.
Sincerely,
_. ~; .
~' ,~, r
~'l...C.C/ ~ 4,
Cindie Green
December 5, 2013
Meridian Planning and Zoning
Attn: Jaycee Holman
City Clerk
RE: File Number RZ 13-017
Rezoning of Lot 1 Tiburon Meadows
Dear MS. Holman,
RF,CF,TVFD
~~~~~ 1 0 2013
CITY OF G4T~= Io~,I,~-
CITYCLERKS OFFICE
We are opposed to the proposed rezoning of Lot 1 in Tiburon Meadows.
Your rezoning form shows a lot size of .54 acres and the letter from
James Gibson Architect shows the lot size of .309 acres (actual lot size).
But this is misleading, as there is a 10' right of way easement and a 15'
berm on the west end of the lot. This reduces the actual lot size to about
.23 acres, which is entirely too small for afour-plex. It is best for the lot to
remain as is or change to a single family dwelling lot.
Mr. Gibson stated that the traffic would be less than a commercial
building. However this street is very congested with the traffic from 10
Mile and it is very difficult to enter and leave the sub as it has only one
entrance. The four-plex would not have adequate off street parking and
cars near the exit would create a traffic hazard. Sheryl Street already has a
do not block sign, which is ignored most of the time. A commercial
building would not have people in and out 24 hours a day like afour-plex
would.
Mr. Gibson indicated that there is a need for moderate size and cost
residences in the area, but on the North East corner of 10 Mile and Pine
Street (about '/z mile away) is a newer four-plex subdivision of 24 four-
plex homes with room for more construction. Also across Pine is another
four-plex area with a number of older units.
Mr. Gibson stated that a substantial number of single-family residences
within 300 feet of the site are non-owner occupied. Tiburon sub has 45
lots of which two are a church with a new commercial building being built
beside it. The remaining lots have 5 rental units with the other homes as
owner occupied. Three of the rental units have out of state owners who
are to retire to the homes in the next few years. I don't believe this
constitutes a substantial amount of rental homes.
We have enclosed a copy of the architect's letter and the Planning
Division form. To summarize the lot is too small and will create entirely
too much traffic at the intersection with the amount of on street parking
that will go with the four-plex. We maybe reached at 375-6774 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely, __
Ronald Arndt Brenda Arndt
JAMES GIPSON ARCHITECT
POBox219
EAGLE, ID 83616
PHONE 208-939-0236
NARRATIVE
October 8, 2013
Meridian City
Project No. 1318
West Sheryl 4Plex
3150 West Sheryl Drive
Meridian, ID
This will explain our application to rezone the above referenced property from L-O to
TN-R The purpose of ttus zone change is to allow development of the p~+operty with a
residemial 4plex. We believe the zone change is both justified and beneficial to the City
for the following reasons :
1) The property is presently undeveloped, and is not L~ely to be developed
with asingle-family residence, because of the adjacent and nearby commercial and other
non-residential uses. The property to the East is currently occupied by asingle-family
residence.
~ 2) The property is too small {0.309 acres) for most commercial uses.
~ 3) The proposed. residential 4plex will provide an appropriate buffer
between the relatively busy Ten Mile Road and the existing single-family residences to
the East.
4) The traffic generated by a residential 4plex is actually substantially less
than that which would be generated by the highest allowed use in the L-O zone. This is
based on the ACRD impact fee schedule, comparing a residential 4plex to a 2,000 sf.
medical office. (4xo.310=1.24 vs. 2x1.785=3.57).
~ 5) There is a substantial need for moderate size and cost residences in the
area; the ptoposed two and three bedroom units are likely to attr~t relatively small
family groups.
~ ~ The rental units will be compatible with the existing residential
neighborhood, where a,~s~~~~ number of the single-family residences within 300' of
this site are not owner-occupi ..
7) ~ The zone change is in full compliance with the Meridian Master Plan.
8) ( The developmen of the property with the proposed residential 4plex will
be an attractive addition to the neighborhood and to the community in general, and will
provide needed additional property tax base as compared with a vacant lot.
9} Appropriate exterior amenities, such as a small playground area and an
enclosed bicycle parking area. will be provided. The site will be fenced to contain
children and limit unwanted access,
20) The site will be landscaped. in an athractive manner, providing desirable
:~.~.,cning from drive mid parking areas, and creating a comfortable residential feeling,
with adequate open space and buffering.
c` l i) "''"~ r-'^r '~ ~~Ptz,'c,~lar and pedestrian circulation patterns will provide for
safe and easy access, with minimal on-site tuoze~aut of ~C:ui<:ica. `'..iu~:iw Wui uvtaucUiy
be directed away from neighboring residential properties.
12) Exterior lighting will be designed so as to avoid glare onto neighboring
properties.
l3) The exterior design of the proposed residential 4plex will be in harmony
with the neighborhood, in scale, composition, building mass, and colors.
In conclusion, the proposed zone change will be a logical benefit to t'x nc~:,,:.xu:.:,~ ~:
the community, in full compliance with the Meridian City Master Plan. We respectfully
request your approval of this application, and thank you for your consideration
With best wishes, .
• y....
J IP ARCHITECT
E IDIAN
14~~:.~~
Planning Division
COIVIlVIISSION & COUNCIL REVIEW APPLICATION
Type oP Review Requested (check aII that aPFIY)
O Alternative Compliance
^ Annexation and Zoning
^ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
^ Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
^ Conditional Use Permit
^ Conditional Use Permit Modification
J~Development Agreement Modification
^ Final Plat
^ Finai Plat Modification
^ Planned Unit Development
^ Preliminary Plat
^~Pdv~ate Street
^ Shortplat
^ T3~ Bxtension (Commission or Council)
^ UDC Text Amendment
^ Vacation (Council)
^ Variance
^ Other
STAFF USE ONLY-
File number(s): ,~~ f43 - Z5 / l
MBA -13-ozz
Pro;~t~:~s P~~ ~ . ~--ri~x
Date filed: Date complete:
.~SSigned Planner: ~'rnycz. M(Gtf~erS
Related files: Rz D ~ - 007 ~ FP -04 -052
pP~l-olt~; G.tP-oN-ol3
Hearing date:l~_! q=f~I~ Commission ^ Council
Applicant jnformatioa
Applicant name: JTC Inc or Assigns Phone: 755-1061 Fax:
Applicantaddress:c/o Jake Conklin/1099 S Wells Zip: 83642 B-mail: tyleriohnson.realtor
A hcant's interest in ^ pwn p g,~ ^ @gma i I . com
PP ~ Property: Optioned ^ Other
Owner name: Hutt 1992 Revocable Trust
Phone: Fax:
Owner addmss: 7461 Ustick. Nampa. 1 D Zip:83687 B-mail:
Agent name (e.g., architect, engineer, developer, representative); James Gipson
Firm name: James Gipson Architect phone: 939-0236 Fax: 939-0211
Address: P O Box 219, Eagle, tD Tip; 83616 B-mail: jaarch@bitsmart. net
Primary intact is: ^ Applicant ^ Owner ^ Agent ^ Othea
Contact name: Tyler Johnson phone:755-1061 Fax:
Contact address: 1099 S Weils St Meridian 1 D Zip: 83642 B-ma8:
Subject Prope~fy Information
I.ocation/streetaddress: 3150 W Sheryl Dr., Meridian, ID 83642
Assessor's parcel number(s): 88449870010
Township, range, section: 3 N / 1 W / 11: ` Total acreage: 0.309
Current land use: Vacant Cuaentzoningdisaict: L-O
33 B. Broadway Avenue, Saide 102 • Metidiao, Idaho ffi642
Phone: (208) 8845533 • Fade: (208) 888-6854 • Webside: www.meridiancatyorg
1 (Rev 0911716/2013)
Project Description
Project/subdivisionname; Sher~rl 4_ In PX ~Tih~irnn MParlnwc
General description of propose..{{d proJj~~ect/request: _
(Iafn l~ dt~[.~JrL+2,+-L f7k i"tZr4tl'tt,~
Proposed zoning district(s): _
Acres of each zone proposed:
TN-R
0.309
~-r`
6 /v}
Type of use proposed (check all that apply):
Residential ^ Commercial ^ Office ^ Industrial ^ Other
Who will own & maintain the pressurized irrigation system in this development? Property Owner
Which irrigation district does this property lie within? Nampa-Meridian
Primary irrigation source: Citx Water Secondary:
Square footage of landscaped areas to be irrigated (if primary or secondary point of connection is City water): 5 ~ 5 A .~}
Residential Project Summary (if applicable)
Number of residential units:
Number of building lots: 1
Number of common lots: -0- Number of other lots: -0-
Proposed number of dwelling units (for multi-family developments only):
1 bedroom: 2- 3 bedrooms: 4 4 or more bedrooms:
Minimum square footage of structure(s) (excl. gazage): 3 , 976 Proposed building height: 26'-4"
Minimum property size (s.f): _ 13, 460 Average property size (s.f.): t ~ ~ L160_
Gross density (DU/acre-total land): ~ 2.9 ~ Net density (DU/acre-excluding roads & aueys): l 2.91
Percentage of open space provided: 41 .5 $ Acreage of open space: 0 12 8
Percentage of qualified open space acreage:
(See Chapter 3, Article G, for qualified open space)
Type of open space provided in acres (i.e., landscaping, public, common, etc): landcran~inT_f. c~llnn area
Amenities provided with this development (if applicable): Plat/ area 8 enclosed bike narking
Type of dwelling(s) proposed: ^Sfngle-family Detached ^ Single-family Attached ^ Townhomes
^ Duplexes~Multi-family ^ Other
Non-residential Project Summary (if applicable) N / A
Number of building lots: Other lots:
Gross floor area proposed:
Hours of operation (days and hours):
Percentage of sitelproject devoted to the following:
Landscaping.
Building:
Paving;
Total number of employees: Number and ages of students/children (if applicable):
Total number of parking spaces provided: Number of compact spaces provided:
Authorization
Print applicant name: ,.! rG /J~j ~' ~!! ~
Applicant signature• ~~- /3";~'`' L ~ ~Gw Date• ~d~~'`~ ~ (
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102 • Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: (208} 884-5533 • Facsinule: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.org
2 (Rev. 02/08/1013)
Existing (if applicable):
Building height:
5
~_P~
November 25, 2013
Meridian City Planning and Zoning
Meridian, Idaho
RE: Lot 1 Tiburon Meadows
Dear Madam/Sir,
I am a resident of Tiburon Meadows and my wife and I are opposed to the construction of
a four-plex rental unit on Lot 1. Prior to my retirement I spent over 35 years in lending.
During this time I was responsible for the construction and end loan financing of over
3,000 homes, duplexes and four-plex rental units. It is my understanding that the lot is
zoned for small business/commercial. Across W. Sheryl St. from lot 1 is the Calvary
Chapel Church and on the other side of the lot is a LDS church. A small commercial
building would better suit the area, as there is an Albertson store on the corner as well as
a credit union on the corner next to the LDS church. A commercial building is currently
being built on the other side of the Calvary Chapel. (see attached plat)
Although the lot may meet the "minimum" standards for afour-plex lot, in my opinion
this lot is entirely too small. There will not be adequate parking. Tiburon Meadows sub
has only one entrance (W. Sheryl St.) The additional traffic and parking on the street will
create more traffic congestion to an area that is difficult to exit/enter already.
When the plans were presented to our HOA board the unit was proposed as "up scale".
But I don't believe that will happen. An up scale unit would be either brick or stucco
with garages for all the units. It is my understanding that the building will not have either
of these. Also "up scale" would have above average interior features such as granite or
the equivalent counter tops, carpet etc. that I don't think will be included.
I maybe reached at 375-6774 if you have any questions.
l~f` ~1 `~
Ron Arndt
3058 W. Santa Clara St.
Meridian, Id 83642
RECEIVE
CITY OFC~fi-a;.''~•,
CITY CLE~.K',',>~
ag qq~~, ~~~~gggg??~~~~ s
~ - g ~ x Y rA~ a$~i ~ ~ ~ ,
~ ~ .~~~ ~a-~~~~~ ° ~ ~~~ f[~liit ~ p Ysy L ~ ~ 9,~ ~.iii~~~i 11L~ii
~ a is ~ ~,x
~~ ~ ~ S
~r ~ ~ ................... 7w~..~.IS~es s~a~0) 6 E/iC ....... ....._...............
b t v rc 1/~ ..~ W
5 B07SYT M (4) •
137St ? 26l~ i 'tea ~~ -` N
(13~' I~~ ~~ dh~ ~, LvriR~t ~' ~ ~R~71FVat~s ~ •y
~~
~ ~
_
~ _
~ ~~~
~~~
~~~ ~ ~~
_ ~
_ ~
~¢~ -
~b~ ~~
~~s
i ~ ~_~
. --
-~$
~~
~~
IL~~
~~ 6~~~
~i~- c l
L iJ
f'-"'"-l
~...i
[' ~~-'~i
!~ ~ lJI
3
5
a
l
~~
~ •~RII6 ' dt,~WWtl
• ~~.~ Si'7S • N73f
..ice-- -. ~ _~--, ~~. ~
.,
SIN , ~ __ga ___ __ ~ ~~ §- i
4... ~~
i
~ ~ i ~~
_ M ~~ ~'
i ~I ~
-____ ____ _ __~_ __ _ _ _ __ o _ r _ ~ ~ ~ ~
9 1 r'~`I 1''mr-~ f_'au°, r I'sn'-ti r'a'1 ~'i°'l t-n.r-i ~~-~ ~ --pox--J a 4~ ~
I ~ ~ `` ~ ~ (~ ~ ~} k (, ~ ~ ~ i ~ giaFer'~~ i~ ~ r ~ ,,,may , _ ~ '~', 7~" C/ ~R'
'C ° IM~Art ~-1W~~ ~ ~} Gl
O ~ ltJ
~ s warns i<r ^ s ~ ~ ~ _ 1 ~' ~ ~ I~st
s r ~ ~~ ~ s ,$ °~~~
~z
~ ..tea. _) s ~ - - ~...~sa-a J O
. w~
y ~
~ ~ y ~ • R~`~"t
p~ ° = w17fl~T~J
l ~I HY ~ y ~ f -NX-~!
~ ~ I _ ilJflR tY.tf ~ ! S 1
~~ _ ~~~- OEEAIlEY MEI11'r ~ ~ ~ l ~ wr~rnt-..~
~ ~ rise ~ ~ L' "~ '~
S~
}~ s ~~ ~ ~ §~~ ~~~ sr~ ~i~ ~i ~ Ste' ~ ~ i L_w'~"'`.~ ~ v-
~~ ( tl ~ i "~ 1 ) ~ )f I ~ 1 i X11 ` i. ` t ~ = i 8 J~ "'4+
~°~or°q°i a~~w
nu ann ~ ass
~~~ ~mc4 ww:~
O
..p
~.~ ~ ~- -~--~- ~ ~ h tom-, ~,~~
E IDIAN
~~ M;
:.'..'+~~~MITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird
Brad Hoaglun
Charles Rountree
David Zaremba
,,':
To ensure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your
comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall
Attn: Jaycee Holman, City Clerk, by: 12-Dec-13
Transmittal Date: November 21, 2013 File No.: RZ 13-017
Hearing Date: December 19, 2013
Request: Public Hearing: Rezone of 0.54 of an acre of land from the L-O to the TN-R zoning district
for Sheryl 4-Flex
By: JTC Inc. or Assigns
Location of Property or Project: 3150 W. Sheryl Drivg
Joe Marshall (No FP)
Scott Freeman (No FP)
Steven Yearsley (No FP)
Michael Rohm (No FP)
Macy Miller (No FP)
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Charlie Rountree, C/C
Brad Hoaglun, C/C
Keith Bird, C/C
David Zaremba C/C
Sanitary Services
Building Department /Rick Jackson
Fire Department
Police Department
City Attorney
Community Development
City Planner ~
Parks Department
Economic Dev.
City Engineer
Meridian School District (No FP}
Meridian Post Office (FP/PP/SHP only)
Ada County Highway District
Ada County Development Services
Central District Health
COMPASS (Comp Plan only)
Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Settlers irrig. District
Idaho Power Co. (FP,PP,cuP/SHP only)
Qwest (FP/PP/sHP only)
Intermountain Gas (FP/PP/sHP only)
Idaho Transportation Dept. (No FP)
Ada County Ass. Land Records
Downtown Projects:
Meridian Development Corp.
Historical Preservation Comm.
South of RR I SW Meridian:
NW Pipeline
New York Irrigation District
Boise-Kung Irrigation District
Boise Project Board of Control /Tim Page
Your Concise Remarks:
~ ~`
~/
RECEIVE
~o~z~
City Clerk's Office • 33 E. Idaho Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 CITY Ot- ~'yi ,~='
gone 208-888-4433 •Fax 208-888-4218 • www.meridiancity.org CITY CLERKS OFFICE
.JAMES GIPSON ARCHITECT
PoBox219
EAGLE, 1D 83616
PHONE 208-939-0236
NARRATIVE
October 8, 2013
Project No.1318
West Sheryl 4-Plex
3150 West Sheryl Drive
Meridian, ID
Meridian City
This will explain our application to rezone the above referenced property from L-O to
TN-R. The purpose of this zone change is to allow development of the properly with a
residential 4-plea. We believe the zone change is both justified and beneficial to the City
far the following reasons
1) The properly is presently undeveloped, and is not likely to be developed
with asingle-family residence, because of the adjacent and nearby commercial and other
non-residential uses. The property to the East is currently occupied by asingle-family
residence.
2) The property is too small (0.309 acres) for most commercial uses.
3) The proposed residential 4-plex will provide an appropriate buffer
between the relatively busy Ten Mile Road and the existing single-family residences to
the East.
4) The traffic generated by a residential 4-plea is actually substantially less
than that which would be generated by the highest allowed use in the L-O zone. This is
based on the ACRD impact fee schedule, comparing a residential 4-plex to a 2,000 sf.
medical office. {4x0.310=1.24 vs. 2x1.785=3.57).
5) There is a substantial need for moderate size and cost residences in the
area; the proposed two and three bedroom units are likely to attract relatively small
family groups.
6) The rental units will be compatible with the existing residential
neighborhood, where a substantial number of the single-family residences within 300' of
this site are not owner-occupied.
7) The zone change is in full compliance with the Meridian Master Plan.
8) The development of the property with the proposed residential 4-plex will
be an attractive addition to the neighborhood and to the community in general, and will
provide needed additional property tax base as compared with a vacant lot.
9) Appropriate exterior amenities, such as a small playground area and an
enclosed bicycle parking area will be provided. The site will be fenced to contain
children and limit unwanted access.
l0) The site will be landscaped in an attractive manner, providing desirable
~:x..cning from drive and parking areas, and creating a comfortable residential feeling,
with adequate open space and buffering.
l l) 'T'HE Yrn+r~r+.eP~ •rehic~rlar and pedestrian circulation patterns will provide for
safe and easy access, with minimal on-site nloi%Eiil~iit of -vcl;.icl.;s. ~ ..luiivs wiii uui~uaiiy
be directed away from neighboring residential properties.
12) Exterior lighting will be designed so as to avoid glare onto neighboring
properties.
13) The exterior design of the proposed residential 4-plex will be in harmony
with the neighborhood, in scale, composition, building mass, and colors.
In conclusion, the proposed zone change will be a logical benefit to tic nci~~;.r:::,:.k ~1
the community, in full compliance with the Meridian City Master Plan. We respectfully
request your approval of this application, and thank you for your consideration.
With best wishes,
4~~-
JAME iP ARCHITECT
2
untitled
To: City of Meridian, Idaho
From: Terri ve i s, 1253 N, victor
way, Meridian, Idaho
Tiburon
Meadows subdivision
Subject: comments Pursuant
re -zoning App 1 i ca t i on Rz13- 017 by
JTC Inc,
Project /vo, 1318
west Sheryl 4-Flex
3150 west Sheryl Drive
Meridian, Idaho
The fo 11 owi ng comments are
regarding the reasons 1 through
13 from James Gipson Architect
submitted October 8, 2013 for the
rezone for the above proposed
project.
1, This property would only
be su i tab 7e for a sma 11 office or
another single fami 1y dwe 11 ing to
be compa t i,b 7e with the 42 sing 1 e
fam i 1 y dwe 7 7 i ngs , i n the Tiburon
Meadows Subdi v~s~on, Tiburon
Meadows has gone to Brea t 1 ength
to ha ve a n i ce, we 17 - kep t
subdivision, The proposed
four-P 1 ex wou 7d not be a good
fit.
/rte /~
~~ r
Page 1
untitled
2. This property would be
better suited for a sma 17 office
such as consu 1 t i ng, insurance,
apppraisal etc, or another single
fame Iy dwe 11 ing.
3, r don't believe a
four-p 1 ex wou 1 d provide any type
of buffer other than creating an
eyesore a t the entry way and
potentia 11y eight more vehicles
facing direct7~ east right in the
view of the single fame 1y
residence next door.
4. There i s not room on th i s
prop_ert fora large complex,
med~ ca 7, denta 7 or otherwise. A
Four-p T ex has the potentia 1 to
create more tra ff~ c morn ~ ng and
night (a 71 night) than a sma 17
office.
S. There are avai 7ab1e
four-p 1 ex units about 1 m i 1 e from
the subject site. A four-p 1 ex on
the proposed site wou 1d not be a
good f~ t and wou 7d be out o f
place.
6. The proposed four-p 1 ex
wou I d i n no way be compa t~ b 1 e
with the existing res~dentia 1
neighborhood. Of the forty two
homes i n the Tiburon Meadows
subdivision, approximate 1y on Iy
four are non-owner occupied. The
owners in genera 1 are p lanninq on
Page 2
Untitled
moving into them in the future as
they bought them to 1 i ve i n after
re t ~ remen t etc, A 1 so, a 17 homes
in the subdivision are stand
a 1 one homes .. , ,they are no t
attached dwe 11 ings.
7. It could be.. ,
8. I persona 11y would not
find i t an attractive addition to
a nice subdivision with we11-kept
s inq 1 e farm 7y residences, we
have ccRs i n our subdivision tha t
he 1p keep our subdivision looking
nice , we have no con tro 1 over
the 1 ook o f the four-p 1 ex and its
grounds even i f i t i s a n i ce
building at the onset.
9, There is very 1 i the room
for an adequate play area for
residents o f the four p 1 ex and
there is the possibi 1 ~ ty of
fenc inq that ~s not compa tab 1 e
with Tiburon Meadows subdivision,
10, rt is doubtful that there
cou 1 d be adequate 7andscap i nq to
screen the drive and parking
areas and to provide an
attractive buffer to the entry
way,
11, wi th the potential for at
(east eight vehicles entering and
leaving- .this property at any
given t Mme o f the day and the
page 3
untitled
close proximity to the single
fam i Iy dwe 71 ~ ng to the east, I
don 't understand how any o f th i s
can be guaranteed.
12. This is a lready a .
requirement of the Meridian city
code .
13, where is the harmony of a
four-~pplex along side single
fam i 7y res i den t i a 7 dwe 7 7 i ngs ? I
don 't be 7 i eve there can be any
harmony, Two to to 17y d i ffe ren t
types o f s truc tures and uses ,
I am definite 1 y opposed to
this proposed four-p T ex.
Sincere 1y, -~
/- _.~, ~~
Terry M, Ve i s
1253 N, victor way ,
Tuburon Meadows subd ~ v ~ s i on
Meridian, .zdaho 83642
Page 4
~-P~
~~~
To: City of Meridian, Idaho
From: Edward D. and Patricia A. Brown, 1211 N Victor Way, Meridian
Subj; Comments regarding proposed re-zone of Lot 1 of Tiburon Meadows
f am vice president of Tiburon Meadows HOA. The following are my comments
regarding the re-zone of Lot 1 of Tiburon Meadows.
My comments will reflect my opinions regarding those 13 reasons for an approval
of the re-zone submitted to the city in James Gibson Architect's request dated
October 8, 2013.
I have referred to the article number and my reason for opposing:
1) Of course the property is not likely to be developed with a single family
residence. It is zoned L-O. A nice insurance office, CPA office, Attorney
office, etc would have a much more aesthetic value than the ugly 4-plex
proposed.
2) The reason stated in 1) makes this statement untrue.
3) What is the definition of appropriate? A 4-plex amongst 42 single family
properties is certainly not appropriate. As for buffers, the recent
construction of a very large commercial building on Lot 2 has not decreased
the amount of traffic noise from Ten Mile in Tiburon Meadows
4) Totally untrue statement. Businesses such as insurance, CPA etc would
generate far less traffic than two cars per unit of a 4-plex.
5) Development going on within a mile to the south provides an incredible
amount of housing to meet the "substantial need" for moderate size and
cost housing. The term moderate size and cost directly conflicts with what
the developers referred to as "high end", "upscale" project at the meeting
earlier this year. I would assume "high end" "upscale" would include
double garages for each unit.
6) This statement is totally untrue. At present we have 4 rental units out of 41
homes in Tiburon Meadows. I do not consider that to be a substantial
number of rentals. In fact there are no rental units within 300 years of tot
1.
8) This realty scares me! The developers in the meeting stated the project will
be sold shortly after construction is completed. This could presumably be
construed to mean the possibility of government subsidized housing and is
afar cry for "high end" "upscale" development.
9) Where in the world is there going to be room for a playground, bicycle
parking, attractive landscaping (referred to in item 10) when there is hardly
room for full sized automobiles to maneuver in and out of the parking?
11) What benefit does this provide to the city of Meridian?
12) Again what benefit does this provide the city. Could this be the only
benefit to the residents of Tiburon Meadows.
13) How in the world can this project be construed to be in "harmony with the
neighboring properties. Not even close.
Most of the residents of Tiburon Meadows are retirees. We have invested in this
neighborhood because the housing is affordable with easy maintenance. Many of
us have a substantial amount of our life savings invested in our homes. A low
budget, unattractive project such as this would have an enormous negative effect
on the value of our properties.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opposition to the unjust request for
a re-zone of lot 1 and the subsequent construction of a very unattractive 4-plex
on the property.
Sincerely yours
~G~~Jk~ ~,~,
~~ ,,~
Edward D.Brown Patricia A. Brown
Re: Project #1318 W Sheryl 4-plea Meridian
We are against the proposed application to rezone this property.
Sheryl Drive is the only access to our subdivision. At certain times of the day, we can
not get in or out due to traffic on 10 mile rd.
Mr. Gibson's letter for this project has several errors:
#6 we are owner occupied single family mostly very elderly and no children in
neighborhood
#8 would not be an attractive addition to community
#11 safe and easy access ,we have parking problems now
(I would ask that you come and see the problem with traffic during morning and
evening commute and Sunday a.m. with church)
#13 a 4 plex is not in harmony with neighborhood
Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
Don and Pat Baumback
1258 n. Delaney way
Meridian
W,~ ~~.
d`
Cc: Ada County Highway Dist.
Meridian Fire Dept.
Police Dept.
TO: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Meridian, Idaho
FROM: Philip J. Zaluska, 1281 N Victor Way, Meridian, ID
DATE: December 4, 2013
SUBJECT: Comments pursuant to re-zoning Application RZ13-017 by JTC Inc.
The following comments are respectfully submitted to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
for consideration in evaluating the subject Application and subsequently denying the request to re-
zone the 0.54 acre of land at 3150 W Sheryl Drive from L-O to TN-R for the purpose of constructing a
4-plex residential building.
My comments are based upon and reference the reasons 1 through 13 in the written request dated
October 8, 2013 submitted by James Gipson Architect to Meridian City. Following, for the readers
convenience, each of the thirteen (13) reasons is stated verbatim from the written request mentioned
above, with each followed by my comment(s).
1) The property is presently undeveloped, and is not likely to be developed with asingle-family
residence, because of the adjacent and nearby commercial and other non-residential uses. The
property to the East is currently occupied by asingle-family residence.
Comment: The claim that the property is not likely to be developed with a single family residence
is entirely speculative. Furthermore, the factual statement that the property to the East is a single
family residence actually makes a case for continuing single family residence development as a
matter of continuity and maintaining a more harmonious appearance of the vicinity.
2) The property is too small (0.309 acres) for most commercial uses.
Comment: The statement of property size being too small for most commercial uses can easily be
misleading. Many small enterprises such as insurance, accounting, consulting, etc., practices
could readily utilize property the size of that in question here.
3) The proposed residential 4-plex will provide an appropriate buffer between the relatively busy Ten
Mile Road and the existing single-family residences to the East.
Comment: It is not at all clear as to how the proposed 4-plex would be an 4appropriate buffer." It
seems the use of the word "appropriate" is both vague and arbitrary.
4) The traffic generated by a residential 4-plex is actually substantially less than that which would be
generated by the highest allowed use in the L-0 zone. This is based on the ACRD impact fee
schedule, comparing a residential 4-plex to a 2,000 sf. medical office. (4x0.310=1.24 vs.
2x1.785=3.57).
Comment: The argument of traffic impact relating to highest allowed use for current L-O zoning
seems to imply high traffic volume. This intuitively suggests a larger business which the applicant
argues under Reason 2 could not be buik on the subject property. The example of a medical
office is not unrealistic, however, it seems difficult to accurately predict how much coming and
going traffic would eventually result from a 4-plex. In any event, the 4-plex option would still
presumably generate four (4) times the traffic of a single family residence.
Page 1 of 3
5) There is a substantial need for moderate size and cost residences in the area; the proposed two
and three bedroom units are likely to attract relatively small family groups.
Comment: What is meant by "substantial need" and how would a single 4-plex significantly
mitigate such claimed need? Furthermore, there appears to be several other substantially larger
residential developments ongoing or possible within one (1) mile of the subject property.
6) The rental units will be compatible with the existing residential neighborhood, where a substantial
number of the single-family residences within 300' of this site are not owner-occupied.
Comment: This statement is highly inaccurate and misleading at best. With Tiburon Meadows
(the immediately adjacent single family residential development) there are only a few homes in
rental status. Furthermore, a majority of the owners of these properties fully intend to move into
the properties themselves, or sell the properties as soon as their value increases to the point
where they can realize adequate return on their initial investment in the property prior to the well
known real estate value crash of recent times.
Additionally, there are in fact very few residential properties with a 300-foot radius of the subject
property. This entire reason appears highly contrived.
7) The zone change is in full compliance with the Meridian Master Plan.
Comment: Presumably.
8) The development of the property wlth the proposed residential 4-plex will be an attractive addition
to the neighborhood and to the community in general, and will provide needed additional property
tax base as compared with a vacant lot.
Comment: The term "attractive" is completely a matter of opinion. Furthermore, the statement of
additional tax base seems to claim no higher use than an empty lot will ever happen if this
proposed 4-plex project is denied. This is doubtful at best. Also, it seems a bit of a stretch to
imply the financial situation of Meridian is rather dependent on the 4-plex proposal.
9) Appropriate exterior amenities, such as a small playground area and an enclosed bicycle parking
area will be provided. The site will be fenced to contain children and limit unwanted access.
Comment: While the proposed amenities represent features desirable to residents, the reality of
the lot size precludes such amenities as being attractive or possibly all that useful (except for
parking) as the executed state of the such amenities would be quite cramped. Also, proposed
fencing possibly may not be harmonious with that found in the nearby residential areas. However,
since no details on type of fencing are given, a conclusion on fencing cannot yet be reached.
10) The site will be landscaped in an attractive manner, providing desirable screening from drive and
parking areas, and creating a comfortable residential feeling, with adequate open space and
buffering.
Comment: It is inconceivable the allotted space for landscaping as shown on the site plan
submitted with the October 8, 2013 Application letter would provide meaningful screening.
Additionally, the statement claim "adequate open space" is factually difficult to see on the site plan
if one excludes structure{s) and paved areas.
Page 2 of 3
11) The proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns will provide for safe and easy access,
with minimal on-site movement of vehicles. Vehicles will normally be directed away from
neighboring residential properties.
Comment: Presumably this point would be a given for any project; thus, it really isn't any special
benefit to the vicinity or the City of Meridian for justification of the proposed 4-plex.
12) Exterior lighting will be designed so as to avoid glare onto neighboring properties.
Comment: There seems to be an existing Meridian City code requirement and, as in Reason 11
above, is not any new benefit for the vicinity or the City of Meridian. (Personal opinion: reasons
such as this for justification of any project really do not belong in any argument for project benefrts,
since such issues are fundamental requirements of existing codes.)
13) The exterior design of the proposed residential 4-plex will be in harmony with the neighborhood, in
scale, composition, building mass, and colors.
Comment: The proposed 4-plex really is not in "harmony" with neighboring single family
residential properties, nor is it even really in "harmony" with any non-residential property as it is
uniquely amulti-residential proposal -neither single family nor commercial nor religion oriented.
Perhaps I'm completely missing the concept of harmony except for possibly color scheme.
I also wish to present one additional concern. Several months ago, having received in the mail from
the project proponents a letter notifying neighboring property owners of a general meeting sponsored
by the proponents to present the project, I telephoned the proponents to clarify the intent of the
meeting as I would be out of town on the meeting date. The individual I spoke with asserted he was
one of two partners for this venture (I do not recall his name). Explaining I would not be able to attend
the meeting, I asked for a brief project overview. The individual provided a brief overall description
and emphasized the project would entail building a truly upscale 4-plex, really ahigh-end product. I
questioned this given the location not being readily associated with "high end," as well as lot size
being rather small. Further assertion as to the intent to build a high end project was made. My point
here is what has actually been proposed does not seem remotely high end. I view this tactic as
deceitful at best and 1 would be reluctant to believe any further representations from the proponents
on this project (or possibly any project proposed by them).
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, I plan to be
at the Hearing on December 19, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
~al,w d.l
Page 3 of 3