Public Testimony (Opposition) CCCity of Meridian
Jaycee Holman, City Clerk
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian ID 83642
Re: RZ 13-017
jZECEIVED
JAN 13 20M
cir~r of ck.
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
I was very pleased when the Planning Board denied the re-zoning of the property at 3150 W Sheryl. I
would like to see the Council uphold that decision.
This property has been vacant for many reasons, and I see no viable reason it cannot remain that way
for now. It affords extra parking area for the members of Calvary Chapel, and relieves some of the
impact on our neighborhood that would happen if the property is developed as proposed.
The usable area of that lot is less than 1/3 of an acre. I feel that is way too small fora 4-plex and the
extra parking facilities and the very small "play area". Children need more than apostage-stamp play
area, and Ten Mile Road is way too busy too many hours of the day to be safe for little ones.
Adults, in cars, have a hard time crossing Ten Mile, and children on foot, or bicycles would be at much
greater risk.
Rezoning of this property does not fit into the master plan for our city, and the proposed 4-plex does not
fit into our neighborhood ofsingle-family dwellings.
Si/n~cereW, >
1. ~r1. ~/ C~.~,' 1 ''. ~/l~'',~
Ciridie GreeLn -' ''_ ~
O
H
Q
V
O
v1
a
2W
w
0
x
0
A
W
a
as
H
•V
cy
Q
Q1
L.i
Q
.~
.~
U
.~
e
Cc
a
0
a.
~v
0
U
v
c
'~
.~
0>
+.~
Q
La
y
N
~,
`~
U
n~
a.
i
O
.~
.~
0
Q
0
0
3
0
0
'~
m
c
.~
L
m
'~
c
ri
ti
0
N
c
0
.~
a
U
L1,
a.
.~
O
L
O
.~
'~
O
U
L
f~
~.i
`~`w
~I~1/
ICI
~
~
S`~. .~
\J
J
\V
?~
f
J.
_
j --~
~~
y
L
,~ ~~ ~~
~ ~
Q ~
~ ~~
i
~"~ ~
'~
i
^i r.
j
~
. ~.
,
J
~ ~~ ~ t
~ 3 n
Z o~
~.
_~
~ L
1J
J -
~ ~, ~-:
~
~J''
i..i
~_
U
O
(/~
(./1
Q
(/~
W
W
x
G/1
3
A
w
z
m
F
M
rn
N
O
h
O
.~
.~
V
.~
Q
0.
'~
O
U
v
.~
U
'~
.~
r..,i
Q
+~.~
+..i
obi
i
.~,
U
L
0
.~
Q
U
O
h
L
OJ
Q~
O
3
0
c
0
.~
ti
0
N
O
.~
a,
.~
O
N
L
0
Q
.~
0
U
L
~~,
:~
~
it
~ ~ ~
,V ^
+ ~~
~
~
~
~" ~ t f'
~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~,,
-~
~~ ~
~
~
~
~ ~~
~
_ _ J
° 1, ~
~~
1 _
` a r
~ v ~
~ ~i~ 1 t --
\
bb .. _
c• _
1
-
',
v 1
~
/
t
~ ,
`
y
i i
it
Q
~
'~ 'J
~ ~
~
r
~~ ~ ~
~
d
` ~,
~
_ _
~~
~
-°
_ ,
3
L_.
VO
'G
'~ ~
.~ _
~
U V
~~
'~
~
~ ~.(
.9
~ e
''Jll
V ;
.U
1`
z ,.~
~ ;
ti `~~~
~
~ ~_..~
'tip
l
M
c C ^
I ~ ~ ~ ~ fi
.G ,..~
..~
-, ~ `~
..,~ f ~; U
~ ~ r ^t ~
'
~' ~j , ~ ^I
J
'~
~ ~ ~ f
L
~
i~~
~
~'
~ ~
~~
,a
~./
.r .~
~` ~}
_
i
~ !
V _ / .' ,.
C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a :~ °'~ /
z
0
H
V
O
Q
f.L
2w
W
O
x
°n
w
I~
rr
H
~i
rn
N
O
0.~
+..,
O
O
.~
.~
V
.~
0.
-~
'Cc
0
U
0
V
a
'~
.~
0.~
i
~,
U
N
a,
L
O
Q
y
Q
i
¢~
3
0
0
3
0
'~
Q
c
0
.a
'Zi
.~
L
'a
ti
0
N
0
.~
0
U
O
.fi
c
L
0
a
.~
N
O
U
L
L.
C '~ -J
bD
N
J .;~
'`~
~
_~_„
~~
~~
i
'
,'
t
/'
i
y
y
~.
~
y
~
~;
~ 3
i J
~
Vy C.
/
1 F,
.,
~~ ~ _ ~
.~
~ ~ ~~
, (~
~
.v CL
~ i
<~
z
1 _
- J ~
~ ~
~.
'~ ~ ~
1L,
P~
O
~,
H
d_
V
G/1
w
w
x
A
w
z
O
a
~V
H
Q
J.1
y
0
.~
.~
V
.~
'a
0
a.
U
O H
U O
~~
V
~ O
~ ~i~
._
~..~ ~
O
~o
~~
L ~~
~,
U
~. ~
~ ~
L
00
'~
Q
U
O
Q
L
01
0)
O
3
0
'~
0
.~
r.+ '~~
C
bA ~\
to . • \ 1
r ~~
' C~ J
.i.
c
_~
~~
Q
~
~~ ~ y
_
, ~
~ .~, ~
--
V1
y Y
~ ~ ~
,J
~
~
/~
). \
}
Q r ~, ,,
,~ ~, :~
")
~ ~ ~
j
v'
~
~ v!
~
.
`
M
~,
~.~
~
~
~
' ~~
S
a~
~ n
V \
;. ~.
'~''
v
~
z ~
~
~
~,
fi
r
,
.
~ ~. ~
J ~ , ~
v
~... v
w ._._
,-
~
~.
December 27, 2013
Meridian City Council
Attn: Jaycee Holman
City Clerk
RE: File Number RZ 13-017
Rezoning of Lot 1 Tiburon Meadows
Dear Council Members,
In my previous two letters in regard to the rezoning of Lot 1 Tiburon
Meadows I feel that I may not have articulated myself very well. As a
retired lender with over 35 years in construction lending, I would not
approve a loan for afour-plex on this lot. The reason is because of the
location is primarily commercial and the other buildings in the near
proximity are all commercial or churches..
Mr. Gibson, the architect, stated that the traffic would be less than a
commercial building. This may be misleading as the ADHC impact fee
schedule formula is based on "averages". Consequently a small
commercial building could easily have much less traffic. This lot is next
to the intersection of Sheryl and 10 Mile Road. Over flow cars from the
four-plex would park on the street near the exit to 10 Mile and create a
traffic hazard. 10 Mile 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 as a four-plex would.
The rezoning of a lot that was just rezoned a few years ago does not make
sense and Meridian Planning and Zoning agrees. The highest and best
use of the lot is for a commercial building. The current economy is the
main reason that the site has not been developed.
We are opposed to the construction of a four-plex. We may be reached at
375-6774 if you have any questions.
Sind Y~~.~ !~~ ~,~n~
Y ` ~onald Arndt Brenda Arndt
3058 W. Santa Clara St.
Meridian, Id 83642
R~ cE1vE,
DEC 3 0 20~
CITY OF C~4F~~';: `" `~
CITY CI_Ef7,K;:, v` r r'~
s~~ ~p~
City Clerk's Office
33 E Broadway
Meridian, ID 83642
Subj: Public Hearing January 19, 2014
I am Vice President of the Tiburon Meadows HOA. This letter is my response to
the memo I received regarding the public hearing on January 19 for rezone
request for Lot #1 of Tiburon Meadows and my opposition to the project.
The plans submitted for the proposed "high end" 4 plex is a far cry from being a
"high end" project. "High End" projects do not have carports and minimize
building code standards as this project does.
I envision this project being sold to an investor soon after completion and it
appears to be a prime candidate for subsidized housing. This means families with
children living right on Ten Mile Road which is one of the busiest streets in the
city. This also puts a multifamily structure in amongst a single family
neighborhood. This would definitely lower property values in Tiburon Meadows.
There are multifamily projects presently going up in a neighborhood within a mile
south of Tiburon Meadows that more than meet the need for moderate size and
cost housing.
Sincerely yours,
~~,~t ~=r~v'~
Edward Brown, 1211 Victor Way, Meridian, ID 83642
Sy~',~ ~+"~'e~
ilk
PHILIP J ZALUSKA
1281 North Victor Way
Meridian, ID 83642
(208) 501-6393
January 2, 2014
Meridian City Council
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: January 21, 2014 Public Hearing Regarding Application RZ13-017 by JTC Inc.
Dear Council Members:
The purpose of this letter is to express support for the Planning and Zoning
Commission's December 19, 2013, decision to deny rezoning of the property located at
3150 West Sheryl Drive from L-O to TN-R. As a resident of the Tiburon Meadows
subdivision located in close proximity to the subject property, it is my conviction the
property is appropriately zoned as L-O. For your convenience, attached is a copy of my
comments letter submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to their
December 19, 2013 public hearing. Furthermore, as an authorized representative of the
Tiburon Meadows Homeowners Association (TMHOA), I presented testimony before the
Planning and Zoning Commission regarding TMHOA's position opposing rezoning.
During the December 19, 2013, public hearing, one primary argument voiced by
supporters of rezoning implied the property might never be developed if not rezoned and
the proposed 4-plex rental property built. It was implied the property has remained
undeveloped because of current zoning. This argument is pure conjecture and ignores
economic realities of the past five to seven years as well as factors related to ownership
of the property as follows:
1. Property development of any description has been noticeably constrained across the
greater Meridian area as evidenced by numerous vacant land properties of all types
and sizes.
2. As the regional economy gradually improves from this time forward, 1 suggest the
probability of any property being developed is appreciably higher here forward in time
than over the past five to eight years.
3. The property in question has, in fact, not been offered for sale during the entire
course of the past five to eight years. Furthermore, when on the market, the asking
price did not reasonably reflect market value for much of the time.
Meridian City Council
January 2, 2014
Page 2
4. The property owner, Mr. Huit, reportedly refused a full price offer from the owners of
the immediately adjacent residential property.
5. A claim was made by the rezoning proponents that numerous rental properties
already existed in Tiburon Meadows. This claim was shown to be highly inaccurate
at the December 19, 2013, public hearing.
In conclusion, even though the proposed 4-plex rental project appears to meet the
technical/statutory requirements of the City (if the property is rezoned), there is no
obvious compelling reason to rezone the property. If the City of Meridian makes a habit
or rezoning to accommodate every development project proposed which requires
rezoning, I would suggest the master plan is perhaps quite flawed and the City has a
much greater issue to deal with. There is no reason the City should feel compelled to
rezone this (or any property) to "force" development, especially when existing zoning is
designed to promote development, just not rental residential.
Respectfully,
Philip J. Zaluska
Attachment
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 "appropriate 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-O zone. This is based on the ACHD 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 built 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 with the proposed residential 4-plex will bean 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 just cation of any project really do not belong in any argument for project benefits,
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 add~ional 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.
Page 3 of 3