Neighboring Properties Issues: Garbage Enclosure & Parking Challenges

47THSTREET APTS APPEAL Main Points *Location of Garbage Enclosure *Parking

STORY OF OUR TWO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES I m the owner of Artis Metals Company, a 85 year old manufacturing business based in Garden City since 1941 at 3323 Chinden Blvd. We employ 45 people. I think light manufacturing jobs are very important to the identify, vibrancy and future of Garden City. A truly diverse district includes artistic, service, white collar and blue collar jobs. We were losing employees due to housing costs in the Treasure Valley, so I started a pilot program to purchase nearby housing to provide to key employees for under market rent. I m excited about employees taking advantage of the green belt, etc. The new properties are 4639 1/2 and 4652 Adams Street and the houses face each other as seen in the photo. Unlike other houses around the proposed apartments, these homes do not face Adams, so their front doors are near the property line (See images)

GARBAGE ENCLOSURE ISSUE The garbage enclosure is located at the perimeter of the property at the setback (approximately 30 feet from one of our houses). This is too close and with 30 plus units using the enclosure, I feel this impacts the useability and value of both of our homes located very close to the property line We ask that the enclosure be moved internal the project where it should be or at another location that isn t as disruptive. Perhaps where the neighbor has just a back yard instead of two homes. I appreciate the work of staff and the Design Review Committee. Communication was always responsive and professional. I just feel with a large project like this with sophisticated developers, architects, and attorneys that there is a full court press to get this done and the issues of one property owner can be easily overlooked. No other property owners testified during this process.

PARKING AS IT RELATES TO THIS PROJECT The willingness to allow fewer guest parking stalls than required allowed the builder to design a very dense project that allowed very little flexibility once this garbage enclosure issue arose. They already had units designed and of course did not want to sacrifice units to re-arrange for parking that would then indicate they could have added more guest parking which they didn t want to do. Point being, the leniency on parking had a domino effect on space to work with to move the enclosure

PARKING IN GENERAL I had planned to really push on the parking, but I m late to the discussion on this What I would say is that if current zoning requires something, please uphold it. The rest of the property owners that have been here a long time have operated by the rules and assume any new project has to play within the same rules. When we do research on what is allowed or not allowed on a property, it s not comforting to hear well, they have made exceptions on other projects or they are going to change the parking requirements, so this would be approved in the futrure . This project should adhere to the rules in place when it is up for review and that would require 8-9 more guest parking spaces. We gave them these spaces on 47thwhich are the guest stalls for everyone already on the street. The garages in this project won t be used, majority of people have SUVs and larger vehicles and too much stuff, so it s all on street parking. Fewer guest stalls just adds to the mess.

IN CLOSING Our Company and my family have been paying taxes and participating in the Garden City economy for 8 decades. We want our people to live close and participate in the exciting new vibrancy we have in GC. These two properties are nice, well maintained, homes for young residents and the idea of a set of garbage dumpers from a large multi-family apartment complex within 30 feet of the front door, bedroom windows, etc. is not right. I believe this issue meets the threshold of undue adverse impact as described in Garden City Code 8-6a-5F, which states that Conditions of approval that are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and prevent undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties may be required and I believe my issues meet this threshold. We ask that you request the Design Review Committee and Staff to work with the developer to relocate the enclosure to a different location that doesn t burden one neighbor (2 properties) with the least desirable component of their project