City Council Public CommentE~EIVED
RICK R & MICHELLE G STOTT SAN T T ZO1~t
__ ~IT~~~~;~ rev
3684 S. Caleb Piave ~~ ,Q~N~ ,
~` C~~`RKS ~~
Mer~d~an,1D 83642 ~'1~
January ~ a, 2414
Planning and Zoning Corrunission
Meridian City Hall
3 3 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
~~~~~
.~~ -~
~ ~ 20~~
cr ~~, ~ar~(aN J
F+~IC~,
RE: PP 13-039 Falconers Place
Dear Commissioners:
We hereb submit our off. asi~on to the proposed application filed by Falcon Drive
y ..
Meridian, LLC, scheduled for hearing before the Meridian Plarvriirig and Zoning
Commission on January 16, 2014. The subject parcels are adjacent to our next door
neighbor's home and our subdivision.
The Future Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan designates ~ area far
low densi residential use with zoning of R-2 or R-4. The only reason the subject parcels
~Y
are zoned R-8 was for the assisted living center previously planned on the property (PP-05-
027 Maxfield Subdivision}. The R-8 zone was the lowest density permitting the assisted
living center use.
The restrictions in the development agreement for the Maxfield Subdivision assisted living
center DA # 105152708} were put in place specifically to restrict the type of application
~ .
before ou now that is, a subsequent developer's attempt to piggy-back on the higher
y
density zone for a more intensive use incompatible with existing neighboring uses. we
know this because we attended the hearings for the Maxfield project. Our primary concern
on Maxfield was the higher density zon:'~g, in our low density area, which concern the City
addressed with the restrictions in the development agreement. To a11ow the proposed
develo ment to proceed would be to renege on the City's assurances to area residents who
p
desire to hang on to the small measure of rural character left in this area. Further, the
sections 7 and 8 of the development agreement clearly states that "the [R-8] zoning
desi nation shall be reversed" if the developer defaults on the agreement, which they
g
have. This parcel should revert to RUT zoning in the county.
As the original and first owners of subdivision property in this area we have seen the
nei hborhood ow u around us. The Planning and Zoning Co~ssion has always
g ~ p
considered our concerns, listened to our suggestions, and implemented zoning
re uirements that increase the value of the neighbonc~iad as a whole while minimizing the
~.
• ' ' four ro roes as much as practicable. This is evidenced by the
diminished value o p pe
' that now surround our once rural acre lots. It has turned into a
neighborhoods
' t is hi desirable to live in (which is evidenced by the speed of lot
neighborhood tlia ghly
' ' creasin roe values. This proposal is completely inconsistent with
sales) with in g p p ~y
' in homes ad'acent ro erty, and contrary to the original intent of the
the east g ) P P
r el zonin and will s' ificantly negatively impact the current and future home
pa c g
values of the neighborhood as a whole,
e res ectful re nest that the a lication now before the Plannin and Zonin
W
Commission be ,denied. Think you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~c.~z~~'~1 ~c ~~ e f 2 e.
Rick and Niicheue Stott
Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision
cc: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner
cc: Tami de weerd, Mayor
Brady & Teresa Turner
3678 S. Caleb Place
Meridian, ID 83642-7068
208-887-6832
February 1, 2014
Meridian City Council
3 3 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: PP 13-039 and Nf IAA 13-024 Falconers Place
Dear Councilors:
We hereb .submit our o osition to the above-referenced applications filed by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC,
Y
scheduled for hearin before the Meridian City Council on February 18, 2014. The subj ect parcels are adj acent to
g
(and uphill from) our home.
The Future Land Use Ma of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential use
p
with zonin of R-2 or R-4. All of the new development occurring in this area over the last ten years complies with
g ..
this low densi residential zoning. The only reason the subject parcels are zoned R 8 was for the assisted living
~'
center reviousl banned on the property (PP-OS-027 Maxfield Subdivision). The R-8 zone was the lowest density
p Yp
permitting the assisted living center use..
The restrictions in the development agreement for the Maxfield Subdivision assisted living center (DA #105152708}
were ut in laces ecifically to prevent the type of development being proposed that is, the attempt topiggy-back
p p p
on the hi her density zone for a more intensive use incompatible with existing neighboring uses. Our primary
g
concern on Maxfield was the higher density zoning in our low density area, which concern the City addressed with
the restrictions in the development agreement. Allowing the development agreement to be modified by a different
develo er for more intensive purposes would be contrary to the City's assurances to us that our low density
p ..
residential uses would continue as such in compliance with the i~Ie~dian Comprehensive Plan. We ask that the City
honor this commitment.
We respectfully request that the applications be denied. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely ~~--e~
~-
ady & Teresa Turner
Lot 6, Block 2, Dartmoor Subdivision