Loading...
Greg Reynolds 1.161 C.Jay Coles From:Luke Cavener Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:18 PM To:C.Jay Coles Subject:Fwd: Linder Village Application - 16 Jan Hearing For the record Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Greg Reynolds < reyngreg@gmail.com > Date: January 16, 2018 at 12:15:05 PM MST To: Luke Cavener < lcavener@meridiancity.org > Subject: Re: Linder Village Application - 16 Jan Hearing Good luck tonight. It's good to know there will be a couple rational heads up on the stand tonight, although I fear it won't be enough to counter those who will be distracted by the shiny objects WinCo will dangle in front of them. Maybe if you can suggest to the mayor that if she doesn't look so totally annoyed anytime someone concerned about the plan steps up, it would go a long way ;) Thanks for all your hard work for the city. -Greg On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Luke Cavener < lcavener@meridiancity.org > wrote: Hi Greg, Thanks for your email. You are correct, we have received a bunch of emails. According to the City Attorney we have received over 3,000 emails on this topic. I appreciate you writing out your own opinions and sharing them with the Council. Because this project is part of an open application, the City Council is prohibited from commenting while not on the public record. However, I take public feedback seriously and I wanted you to know that I have received and read your email. I’d encourage you to follow the process and attend Tuesday’s City Council meeting on this issue. If you have questions about the process feel free to reach out to me directly. Best, Luke Sent from my iPad On Jan 9, 2018, at 11:58 PM, Greg Reynolds < reyngreg@gmail.com > wrote: Council Members, 2 I feel that most of what I want to say generally about this whole process has been expressed multiple times and would cause you to glaze over and skim this letter, so I will only focus on new items from or following the last meeting. First, some clarifications on items that keep appearing in testimony and letters: • No one I've been associated with in this process is opposed to the development of this area. Period. We are disappointed at what has been proposed, and we are willing to wait until a good plan is presented, but it is tiresome to hear the same thing over and over again about how we don't want anything built over there. It's the default argument that's used when there is no rational response to the concerns we have raised. Also, I will say that I thought it was very unprofessional of Councilman Bird to nod in approval as someone claiming to know our intentions spouted this nonsense in the last meeting. We've invested a lot of time and effort trying to get a development that we can be proud of, and the P&Z staff has put up with a lot to get things this far, so to see such a blatant show of contempt from a council member was, frankly, disgusting. I hope the mayor and current council members will be more respectful than him in future hearings. • If so many nearby residents are in favor of this plan, where are the numbers? Sure, there are a lot of people who like WInCo. I shop there (although this process has soured me to their practices). People want more choices for shopping and other services in this area. So do I. But, when it comes down to really, truly, looking at this plan and poking holes in it, people don't like what they see. This is evident by how much support we were able to drum up to get the changes we fought so hard for at the P&Z level. The supporters? Not so much. Some Facebook likes for WinCo, a few folks who stand to gain financially from construction, and a few residents willing to look the other way so they don't have to drive far to buy bulk lima beans at 3am. • Some folks have pointed out that the homeowners on the two pieces of property to the south of the Linder Village land, just to the west of the church, are in favor of the development as-is, with none of the concerns express by other residents. It is hardly mentioned, however, that their land is under contract to be sold to TMEG development, who plans to build a daycare, a dance studio, and several smaller commercial pads off Linder road (see application AZ RZ H-2017-0095). So, please keep in mind that those landowners are not opposed to this development... because they will be long gone. And, just to be clear, I am on record as supporting the revised application from TMEG that was recently approved by P&Z. We want to work with the developers who are building around Paramount, and we are not in any way unreasonable. My concerns at this point are pretty straightforward, so I'll just get to them now: • Which plan should I be reviewing - the one submitted to ACHD, the one submitted to the city, or the one we just got directly from the developer? I'm not sure if this is an old tactic that we saw multiple times during the 3 P&Z phase, or if they really can't get their act together, but hopefully you're starting to see what we dealt with for several months. You can't get a straight answer, and then they express their "shock and disappointment" when we don't rally behind them at the public meetings. I want to like the development, and I wouldn't be spending this much time trying to get it worked out if I trusted them to make good decisions, but months (and years for some folks) of getting the runaround makes me wary of anything we see from DMG. How can the council make a logical decision when there is so much conflicting information and no time for proper review? • ACHD is forcing access to commercial areas through Paramount's narrow streets. I know this is not the council's decision, but there are absolutely things that can be done to deter drivers from using the neighborhood as an easy shortcut - especially the High Schoolers on lunch break. Stop signs won't be enough. We need a roadway design that provides emergency and alternate access, but does not endanger pedestrians by giving straight arrow-shot paths for motorists on narrow and crowded residential streets. The businesses that will be built in the Linder Mixed Use area would love for the traffic to flow through their area instead - I know this because I got it directly from the developer. • The townhomes are a step backward and don't fit the R-8 designation being asked. With the ongoing school rezoning discussions showing overcrowding in all the schools covering Paramount, how can we say it's a responsible decision to allow the developer to replace the alley-load houses in the previous plan with high-density units? This is another of the tactics we saw multiple times - change whatever wasn't complained about in the last meeting to up the profits, and claim it was done because of some other minor concession that didn't materially impact them. Single- family homes make sense in this plan, which is why there was no objection to them in the last meeting - why go back now? • The larger residential lots closest to the large medical office building make no sense unless they are either apartments or multi-plexes. Why would you build the largest homes nearest to the commercial site? What assurances do we have that the single-family homes in this plan won't mysteriously turn into apartments or 4-plexes? Same argument about R-8 and overcrowded schools applies here. It doesn't take much brain power to see right through this one. I would hope this question is asked directly to the developer and anything less than an absolutely direct answer is not accepted. • Finally, our old favorite - there is still a 24/7 operation in a CC designation. It's disingenuous to pretend that the WinCo, as-is, isn't anything but a regional draw. If the council is going to cave to them holding construction of the other store hostage unless any and all variances are granted in this location, then just have the guts to come out and tell us. Don't justify. Don't pretend. Just tell us. We're asking for deliveries to be limited to the hours specified by the zoning, and WinCo 4 has made such concessions in the past, so why should we give in when it is so clearly out of place here? I do hate coming across so negative and borderline disrespectful, but I'm tired. Tired of getting the runaround from the developer and veiled threats from the lawyers. Tired of the WinCo execs' aloof attitude when it comes to the concerns we've raised. Tired of having my intentions misrepresented and name slandered when all I want is a development that I can stand behind and feel proud to support. I imagine the council feels that way a lot, so I can empathize. The big difference here is that when this is finally all over, you get to move on to the next agenda item, whereas my family and friends will have to live with the outcome for the next 5, 10, or 20+ years. How can I stay quiet with that at stake? Please, don't let them move backward on anything we have been able to achieve so far. And please take the time to really understand the concerns we've raised, the data behind it, the lack of cooperation we've received, and the reasons we are so adamant about holding our ground with this developer. At the last meeting, my wife asked how the city motto should be interpreted - is it business first and residents second? I'll ask again. What's your answer? Sincerely, Greg Reynolds City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-888-4433 www.meridiancity.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law.