HomeMy WebLinkAboutMcNutt, Amanda - LetterofOpposition_Springhouse Townes_02.12.25Amanda McNutt rhynei@gmail.com 02/12/2025
Permit #: ANN25-000002
Project #: 25-000490
Requests:
1. Require lower density on the borders of the proposed development to create a better zoning buffer and/or
reduce the height of buildings to a single story along the development border.
2. Deny the PUD, require a redesign as a subdivision application.
3. Require screening measures such as a berm and/or trees on the southwest side of the development.
Alternatively, require a mass grading exercise to prevent new development from being substantially higher
than existing.
Inconsistent land use and density:
The proposed development notes in their application a density of ~8.5 units per acre, although based off the parcel
size, it seems to calculate to ~8.93. Either way, the densities surrounding this proposed average less than 2 units
per acre, with the exception of Brittany heights, which is still under 4 units per acre. Under the current comp plan,
without a PUD this development would only be allowed up to 4 units per acre.
Some options to mitigate the concerns of the neighboring communities are shown below. These options could be
primarily single family detached, but also attached product in the center or on east side. This ties into the next
point which is the qualiflcation for a PUD.
PUD qualification:
• “The planned unit development process is not intended to skirt development rules nor results in a
detrimental impact on the surrounding community through its implementation.”
• “The planned unit development process is intended to provide fiexibility, latitude and relief from the
provisions of the zoning ordinance only if the proposed development is consistent with two (2) or more
of the following instances”:
PUD Requirement Explanation of Failure to Meet
The development offers a maximum choice of living environments by allowing a variety of
housing and building types.
There are only two building types, the primary difference between them is one is alley
loaded and the other front loaded, but they’re all attached in a “row-home” townhouse
style, making them operate very similarly and all target the same demographic.
The development promotes mixed use projects which are functionally integrated within
the development and provides services to the primary use.
No services or mixed-use elements are proposed.
The development provides a layout which preserves and properly utilizes natural
topography and geologic features, trees, scenic vistas or other vegetation.
The only preservation is that of the irrigation ditch and easement, which is required
regardless of application type. The applicant is not preserving natural features, vistas,
views, or other natural elements, they are simply complying with irrigation district
requirements.
Where a land parcel is constrained or otherwise limited by some obstacle, feature,
geometry, condition, or easement that interferes with applying
standard development processes
Although an easement is located on the property, standard development can occur – see
previous examples.
The development encourages inflll development that contributes a compatible design to the
existing neighborhood
The use is not compatible with the existing neighborhood uses. Going from 1-4 units per
acre to almost 9 units per acre does not provide a reasonable transition. Additionally the
style of homes does not match the feel of any neighborhood that this development is
adjacent to.
Grading:
There is about a 6 foot grade change from this development to London Park to the south.
Unless berms or other mass grading efforts are put forth, we’ll end up with the same situation that happened with
the development of Brittany Heights, see below.
It seems like a long distance between homes, but because of the ditch and the way the ground slopes in this area
the ~268 feet from the window of the existing house to the fence line of the new home, feels much closer and
intrusive.
As you can see, the foundation of the home is well above the top of the fence, so not only are second story
windows looking down into other people’s yards, but the entire flrst fioor is as well. This creates an issue of privacy
for both home owners. Triple Dot and Riley will likely argue that there is “plenty” of distance between London Park
and their development, which sounds true in theory, but is not in practice.
Amanda McNutt
16766 London Park Pl.