Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWRITTEN RESPONSE LETTERS - 154 Rosewood - CUP for non-family housing for 4 studentsAugust 20, 2001 Rexburg City Planning and Zoning Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Dear Friends, My family and I moved here two years ago when I accepted a position as a physics professor at Ricks College. We bought a home on the northeast corner of 2°a South and 3` East, with undeveloped property over our back fence. We bought where we did so as to be far enough away from the college to be away from the students, but close enough for me to walk to work. We were assured that the undeveloped property behind us would not - could not - be used for apartments. Our three young children would then be able to walk to Lincoln Elementary school across the street, and play down the Rosewood cul-de-sac with their friends without a lot of traffic. I am vigorously opposed to apartments renting to groups of singles in our neighborhood. Traffic and parking are always problems, regardless of whatever steps are taken. College-age singles keep hours and company that are inconsistent with the character of neighborhood I want to raise my kids in. Eight families with a total of twenty children under the age of ten live in the vicinity (within three houses) of the proposed apartment, which I understand would require a zoning variance. Current occupancy rates show a need for more married student housing in Rexburg, but not more single student -age housing apartments. The City of Rexburg Comprehensive Plan: Rexburg 2010, projects growth in Rexburg requiring additional residential housing and additional multiple -family housing in areas detailed in the Plan. Mixing multiple -family and residential living areas creates present and future problems for both constituent groups. Consideration of the Comprehensive Plan becomes even more important now that it has been shown to be conservative in its growth estimates in light of the announced transition of Ricks College to BYU- Idaho. If zoning and planning are neglected now, as the projected 100 additional faculty and staff are added in the university community alone, attractive residential neighborhoods will be ruined. A Rexburg like this cannot expect to be able to attract and retain community -minded citizenry and families. If we could be assured, as the application claims, that the apartment would only be used for live-in nurses or relatives of the applicant, that would be a different matter entirely. I am afraid though, that once Pandora's box has been opened, the furies cannot be re -interred. If you ignore the laws, ordinances, city planning and wishes of the people in allowing this variance, you will ruin our neighborhood. Please do not allow business interests to run roughshod over our rights as property owners and our wishes as neighbors and families. Sincerely, / Q- ^ J� ,� , Brian A. Pyper UW�J Professor, BYU-Idaho Dept. of Physics Scoutmaster, Troop 215 175 S. 3`' East Rexburg, ID 83440-2003 August 22, 2001 Planning and Zoning Committee City of Rexburg 12 North Center Rexburg, ID 83440 Dear Planning and Zoning Committee: My name is Corey Barnard. I live at 272 E 2"d South, Rexburg. I am testifying before you today in opposition to the request of a conditional use permit at 154 Rosewood Drive to allow up to 5 or 6 students to rent the basement apartment at said address. Not more than a year ago several area residents and myself had a meeting with the Police Chief for the City of Rexburg. Our discussion points were the traffic and excessive speeds with which that traffic posts on a regular basis on Second South. There have been numerous accidents and several near misses with pedestrians not to mention many animals getting run over (including my daughter's dog) due to vehicles traveling at speeds much higher than the posted limits. Although the Chief was very responsive to our concerns, the bottom line was that the City only has so many resources available to it and at the present time he did not think there was more that the City could do to curb the excessive speeds. Some possible solutions for the future would be for residents to collect license plate numbers and call them into police; and secondly the Police department was going to write a grant to buy an automatic speed indicator similar to the one that BYU IDAHO is using around their campus. Given the limited resources of the City and their inability to police the high speeds on Second South I find it necessary to request that you not approve the above mentioned conditional use permit. Five or six additional students traveling several times a day on Second South coupled with the traffic of an occasional friend or two would seriously impact the safety of an already dangerous city street. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of my testimony. V City of Rexburg 12 North Center Rexburg, ID 83440 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written regarding the Conditional Use Permit applied for in behalf of 154 Rosewood, Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho. The Conditional Use Permit application proposes occupancy in said basement apartment for four single tenants. The proposed application fails to meet various Standards Applicable to Conditional Use Permits (City of Rexburg Zoning, Ch.6, Sec.6.13), including but not limited to standards (3),(4), and (7). Specifically, this letter will address issues of congestion, safety, and parking. 1. Congestion Rosewood Drive consists of ten single family homesites located on a culdesac street. Conseaquently, all traffic to and from Rosewood Drive is obtained through the Rosewood Drive and 2° South intersection. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit will generate substantial traffic on this quiet culdesac drive, resulting in significantly increased congestion. Suppose each of the ten homesites on Rosewood Drive own two automobiles; this would result in a possible total daily traffic flow of 20 automobiles. Next, consider the addition of four automobiles resulting from the CQUditional Use Permit occupants. Then consider that the owners of the adjacent property, Q Rosewood, also plan to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to house four tenants. This brings our daily traffic flow up to 28, which constitutes a 29% change in daily traffic resulting from occupants of the Conditional Use Permits. An overwhelming 43% of daily traffic would result from just two of the ten homesites. The proposed combined additional traffic poses great concern because it creates both safety risks and parking overflow. Specifically, this violates Standard (4), which states any Conditional Use Pemmit shall "Not create a nuisance or safety hazard in terms of...excessive traffic generation.". 2. Parking Upon scrutiny of a Rosewood Drive map, it becomes apparent that the street has little room for automobile parking. In fact, there is not room for automobiles other than would normally be associated with a single-family residential neighborhood. Two of the proposed four tenant automobile spaces outlined in the Conditional Use Permit application do not meet current Parking Regulation. Spaces Ill and #4 violate several Parking Regulations, including 5.5 Parking Plan Required "A", "G" and "I", and 5.6 Location of Parking Areas. Parking of four or more uncovered automobiles in the driveway and setback area of 154 Rosewood Drive drastically changes the overall appearance of the street and surrounding homes. This conflicts with standard (3), which states the permit shall "Be designed and constructed in a manner to be harmonious with the existing character of the neighborhood ...... Furthermore, any automobiles other than tenants' shall have to park on the street sides. The only parking available on street sides lies directly in front of or next to neighboring properties to 154 Rosewood Drive. Assuming again that each homesite has two automobiles, there is ample off-street parking for visitor traffic normally associated with single family dwellings (two spaces in each driveway). However, there is no visitor parking at 154 Rosewood. Although it is not required to provide visitor parking, this problem constitutes a direct violation of LDRI zoning in that it creates high levels of street side parking. In addition, it is both a nuisance to neighbors and a safety hazard. lal Assume each of the ten homesites receives visitor traffic, along with each tenant in Wand 154 Rosewood Drive. This increase constitutes a substantial 44%in visitor traffic for which there is no parking except street side. Obviously, additional automobiles parked along street sides will obstruct drivers' views of pedestrian (specifically children) traffic. Again, this violates Standard (4) in that it "creates a nuisance [and] safety hazard for neighboring properties..:'.....". Excessive street side parking in front of residential homes is not "harmonious with the existing character of the neighborhood" (Standard (3)). At this time, there are no existing plans to effectively buffer to screen adjoining homes from the said adverse impacts of traffic and parking (see Standard (7)). 3. &Lety Rosewood Drive consists of single-family dwellings, the majority of which house small children. Homeowners consider our culdesac street to be an ideally safe, dead-end drive where children may play without threat of harm. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will, as noted above, create a substantial increase in the flow of traffic on Rosewood Drive. This increase in traffic must be considered a safety risk for our families and neighborhood. In this respect, the permit would violate Standard (4), which states the Conditional Use Permit shall "Not create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties in terms of ... excessive traffic generation". Excessive street side parking constitutes a nuisance in that it generates noise as tenants and visitors park their automobiles along adjoining properties. More importantly, the streetside parking detailed above will be located along adjoining homeowners' front, side and back yards. The parked automobiles obstruct drivers' views in a residential neighborhood in which children play. Additionally, Rosewood Drive is located directly across the street from Lincoln Elementary School. Consequently, children cross both Rosewood Drive and 2 South at this crucial intersection. A substantial increase in the traffic flow in and out of Rosewood Drive must be considered a safety risk for those children, many of which walk to and from school using the said intersection. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit will have an area of impact much larger than 300 feet in that it will affect the families of all those whose children use the 2°d South/Rosewood Drive intersection to attend Lincoln Elementary. Again, the proposed permit conflicts with Standard (4), which states the permit shall "Not create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties in terms of .. interference with pedestrian traffic." We are certain that the City of Rexburg is interested in taking the best course of action in serving the overall good of its citizens. We recommend that the Conditional Use Permit for 154 Rosewood Drive be conditionally approved for a maximum of two (2) occupants. This conditional approval would serve the good of everyone involved in that it will allow 154 Rosewood to use the basement apartment while at the same time be in accordance with zoning ordinance, protect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and foster the safety of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lesko I9q 12oSRMOO `Dnue taut ar1 I�aylEne Gra�� Lt�— l� • 7�( 6ose wood �r 351 i:'. olnd �,� KosC'wca�` �• Is4c,v� 3!0 3 C9,. 155 Rosewood Drive Rexburg, ID 83440 August 20, 2001 City of Rexburg 12 N. Center Rexburg, ID 83440 Members of the Planning and Zoning Committee: This letter is written regarding the Conditional Use Permit applied for in behalf of 154 Rosewood Drive, Rexburg, Idaho. The proposed parking plan for the required permit violates various Parking Regulations found in the City of Rexburg Ordinance Book, Chapter five. Specifically, spaces #1 and #4 violate 5.5 Parking Plan Required "A", "G", and "I", and 5.6 Location of Parking Areas. Enclosed you will find a copy of the proposed parking plan for the Conditional Use Permit applied for in behalf of 154 Rosewood Drive. It is important to be aware that the dimensions given in the plan are inaccurate. The dimensions in red represent more accurate dimensions and additional pertinent information, such as entrances and exits to the site. These figures will be referred to in regard to parking spaces. Section 5.6 Location of Parking Areas states "In residential zones, required parking shall not be permitted in the required front yard or the required side yard facing a public street. Such yards shall be dedicated to landscaping and driveways". Parking Space #1 directly violates this regulation in that it is located in the front yard facing a public street. In other words, it lies within the 25 -foot area in front of the home; this area does not allow required parking to be met for Conditional Use Permits. Additionally, space #1 violates Section 5.5 Parking Plan Required "A", which states "each required off-street parking space shall be at least (9') in width and at least (18') in length, exclusive of access drive and aisles. Parking space #1 is a mere 4 feet 6 inches in width. Additionally, if parking spaces 42 and #3 were 18 feet in length, that would leave only 7 feet (25 foot drive minus 18 foot space) for an automobile parked in #1 to maneuver within to exit the space. This is obviously not adequate room. Last, space 91 would violate 5.5 Parking Plan Required "G", which states "No parking area, except those designed for single family homes, shall be designed or constructed to create a situation in which vehicles back into the public right-of-way". It is apparent that space #1 violates several regulations; therefore, we request it be denied use as a proposed parking space. Proposed parking space 94 also violates several regulations. First, the space is only about 8 feet 8 inches wide. This does not meet the required 9 foot width given in Section 5.5 Parking Plan Required "A". Any driver parking an automobile in this space would not be able to adequately open the driver side door; it would hit against the side of the home. Additionally, the space must be backed out of to obtain access to the public road. Again, this violates 5.5 Parking Plan Required "G". Most importantly, the entrance and exit to the residence is on the back side of the home (please refer to map). This entrance/exit to the site has a brick path running from the door of the site over to proposed parking space #4. Obviously, there is no room available to park an automobile and have a walkway for tenants when given a mere 8 feet 8 inch space. This combined use for parking space #4 as both a parking space and a walkway is both inappropriate and unlawful. Therefore, we request that space #4 be denied use as a proposed parking space. Upon scrutinizing the entire parking plan, it becomes apparent that 5.5 Parking Plan Required "I" is also of concern. If spaces #1,2,3 and 4 were to be kept clear of snow, along with the accessway to #4 and the circle drive, where would snow be stored? It is apparent that there is no adequate snow storage location. We request that a plan for snow storage be required; a plan that would not encroach on neighboring properties' snow storage locations. Proposed parking spaces #2 and #3 meet parking requirements. However, the parking spaces required for the Conditional Use Permit could not block those required for the owner. Therefore, either proposed parking space #2 or #3 would have to be switched with what the proposed parking plan shows as owner parking (see change on plan written in red). Additionally, at this time one space shown as owner parking is being used for storage. In order for the owner to meet the requirement of two spaces as outlined in 5.8 Table 3, that space would need to be cleared of storage. If this requirement is met, then there are a maximum of two (2) spaces that meet City of Rexburg Parking Regulation. Therefore, we request that a Conditional Use Permit be restricted to a maximum of two (2) occupants. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerel , Johnson T. and Cory L. Webb enclosure