Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWRITTEN RESPONSE - 06-00605 - 539 Maple Dr - CUP for Duplex in LDR2/7� /94P'J�7 d" uck��? �- 7 Response to the application for a CUP on Maple Drive (at the Warr's) I believe that there are many valid and compelling reasons that this CUP should not be granted by the Housing Commission. I would like to express four of the more crucial ones at this time. In doing so, I wish to say that I am making these objections to additional duplexes without any personal feelings against any individual. It is the duplexes—which I happen to think harm the atmosphere and safety of neighborhood—that I am opposing and not individuals. No matter what the decision—even if another duplex is allowed, and even though I think it hurts the neighborhood—I will not change my feelings of kindness and friendship towards those who add a duplex. I just hope that such feelings will be reciprocated—no matter what the decision is. 1. A string of four duplexes would be created at an already saturated location in the neighborhood If this CUP were allowed, then it would create a contiguous string of four duplexes along Maple Drive, in an area where three other duplexes are currently found directly across the street (two on the corner of Maple and Oak (the Michelson's), and one next door to the Michelson's on Oak). This means that in a dense area where originally 7 households were intended, there would now be duplexes to crowd in twice that many fourteen households. (Please see accompanying map and highlighted area to see how concentrated an area of duplexes this has become.) When a public hearing was held to receive neighborhood feedback for the CUP on Oak Street earlier this fall, neighbors expressed their concern that the number of duplexes in the neighborhood was reaching a saturation point and that any new additions would drastically change the entire atmosphere, dynamics, and identity of the neighborhood. Even some on the commission agreed with that idea, but then expressed the fact that many of the duplexes that had already been granted CUPS by the city were given these CUPS against the stated regulations and were not actually in compliance. Therefore (since some of these duplexes would have return to single-family dwellings), the commission reasoned, the saturation point would not be as much an issue—when these duplexes were phased out. As you know, the city decided that these homeowners would be granted CUPs despite their clear non-compliance with the written regulations (since the city apparently was not clear in their communications with these homeowners). Therefore, the pressing issue of a saturation of duplexes in our neighborhood once again becomes a valid and pressing concern and a critical reason that this latest CUP in this the most saturated area in the entire Powell subdivision should not be granted. 2. This string of four duplexes would be created at an extremely busy and dangerous area in the neighborhood It also happens that this string of four duplexes and two other duplexes across the street --or potentially twelve households in six homes --is located on Maple. Drive right at a point in the sheet of a dangerous blind curve, and where drivers are constantly speeding, in disregard of the many young children riding bikes, or roller-blading, or just attempting to cross the road. By having this string of four duplexes along this section, you would double the potential traffic from these homes. Also, Maple Drive is the longest street in the entire neighborhood and receives the most traffic of any street in the neighborhood. I see on a regular basis children actively playing in the street in this area. For instance, I saw a large group of kids sledding from a driveway in this area directly into the street without any concern for traffic or dangers. I am always seeing children crossing the street in this area on bikes or running without any concern for the traffic. This very crucial concern for safety and the dangers that would certainly be magnified by any additional duplexes in this area is one additional reason why this latest CUP in this saturated section should not be granted. 3. An addition to this string of duplexes would drastically change the atmosphere and identity of the neighborhood Even besides the danger of increased traffic at a dangerous blind curve, additional duplexes in this long string of contiguous duplexes at this point of the Powell Subdivision would certainly change the look, feel, and actual identity of the neighborhood at that point. This section --above all others --would in fact then become a renter's neighborhood instead of a single family neighborhood. The majority of the families in the Powell Subdivision have expressed their strong desire to maintain a family -friendly neighborhood. Allowing this long string of duplexes and renters in this location would effectively reject this clear decision from these homeowners and tell them that the city has decided to arbitrarily transform their neighborhood from a jamily friendly neighborhood to a renter's neighborhood. This is an additional reason why the CUP should not be granted. 4. Besides aggravating an already dangerous situation and drastically altering the identity and atmosphere of the neighborhood, an addition to this string of duplexes would drastically devalue the property values of the homes around this duplex—just so that those who will live outside the neighborhood can use the neighborhood for their private investment opportunities. So one investor's personal rental investment would harm the owner investments of a multitude of families. (Even though the primary motive of these majority owners seeking an upzoning has not been monetary—see items 1 through 3 above for an explanation of the primary motivations). It is important to respond at this time to some of the accusations that have been made against those in the Powell neighborhood and subdivision who have been attempting to "upzone" this neighborhood. It is important because some of those accusations have created unfair contentions within the neighborhood and aspersions on the motives and characters of those seeking a change in zone (the number of which, it should be noted, constitutes a supermajority of the households in the neighborhood). Those who are seeing a zone change have been called uncharitable, prejudiced, and have been told they are only concerned with money and property values and not with helping people or with the freedoms of people. Therefore we must make two things very clear as this decision is now being weighed: 1) The primary concern for those seeking a change in zone has never been about money; it has always been primarily to maintain a safe and family friendly environment. Those seeking a zone change have simply recognized that with the growing university population, a drastic change in the entire identity and family atmosphere of the neighborhood inevitably would occur, and they knew that a change in zone would be the only way to prevent the neighborhood from becoming transformed from a family -friendly neighborhood into a rental neighborhood (much like the a similar "trees streets" neighborhood has become in Provo Utah). 2) On the other hand, those seeking a CUP to build duplexes in this neighborhood clearly have primarily (perhaps solely) financial incentives for doing so. So if anything these accusations of a money - motive as the main concern rather than for the maintaining a high quality of life for the families in the neighborhood apply better to those seeking to use this neighborhood as an investment opportunityfor themselves at the expense of the family -friendly atmosphere of the neighborhood. But at no time have I ever heard those seeking a zone change accuse those seeking to invest in rental duplexes of being uncharitable. Instead, I have only heard expressions that whatever decision is made they will not let that decision affect their feelings towards those people. I hope that both sides of this issue can make that their goal. Interestingly, and significantly, the latest CUP applications that have come before this \I commission have come from individuals who have not resided long in the neighborhood, but have more recently arrived and have other rentals that they are using as personal investment opportunities. Many of those who recently sought or obtained CUPs have no intention of staying in the neighborhood but simply want to use the homes in neighborhood for personal investment opportunities. In fact, both the Madsen and the Warrs have mentioned other rental investments, which they have had before they purchased homes in the Powell Subdivision (the Warrs apparently own a fourplex in Rexburg—which they mentioned that they will be upgrading to enhance that investment). As a member of this board has said in the past: "I am not sure I like the idea of someone coming into a neighborhood with his horse and using the neighborhood for his horse's use while he lives in his own separate neighborhood." So, could we please recognize that those who seek to keep further rental duplexes from saturating the neighborhood, and who don't see their neighborhood as primarily an investment opportunity for those who will reside outside of the neighborhood, don't deserve to be accused of being "uncharitable" for doing so. We have nothing against any individuals; it is only the idea of investors depleting the family friendly atmosphere of the neighborhood by saturating the neighborhood with duplexes and renters that we are concerned about. Are we so wrong for wanting to maintain a family -friendly neighborhood or for wanting to maintain our property values or for our belief that any additional duplexes will compromise the neighborhood's safety, family atmosphere, and property values? Is the only charitable response to allow outside investors to do whatever they wish to do with our neighborhood? Is passivity the only path to charity? Would it be possible for those seeking to invest in duplexes in this neighborhood to allow that others may disagree and oppose such investments and still be good people and good neighbors? Or are those who disagree with them invariably uncharitable? And as far as property values are concerned, why shouldn't the current, long-standing families in the neighborhood be as concerned with the value of their major investment as those who want to turn a home into a rental property investment are? Interestingly, an addition of a single duplex can have a drastic effect on the downward appraisals of many homes in a neighborhood, and therefore severely devalue a major investment that these families are counting on for future retirement, college and mission costs for their kids, or to cover other unforeseen emergencies or medical expenses. Why should those seeking to turn their homes into a duplex think that it is only their investment opportunities that should be considered important? In the case of the application now being considered (the Warr's), no major modifications have yet been accomplished. Additional property, which would be necessary to comply with the regulations, has not yet been purchased (though this property has been offered by the Madsens who have a duplex next door to the Warrs). So no real financial harm would be done to them if the application were denied (though even if such changes had been made, the objections to a CUP would still far outweigh any reasons for granting a CUP). In any case, they apparently have other rental investments that they can attend to. We are simply saying that an additional rental investment for them would cause much more damage to the investments of families that surround them. And for this reason, we believe that the CUP should not be granted. Bottom Line: Granting a CUP in this location would do much more harm to multiple families and homes than it could possibly benefit an individual investor. Because of safety concerns, oversaturation of duplexes in this area of the Powell Subdivision, the transformation of the neighborhood from a family neighborhood to a rental neighborhood, and the resultant devaluation of the homes near this potential string of contiguous duplexes, the granting of this CUP would clearly do much more harm to the people and identity of this neighborhood than it would have benefit to those interested in using this neighborhood for a personal investment. For these reasons, the CUP clearly should not be granted.