Loading...
2019-05-15 Kendra Neely (Three Corners Homeowners Association Board 5-14-2019 goes with video submitted same date1 Charlene Way From:Kendra Dean <kendradean@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2019 2:25 PM To:Meridian City Clerk Cc:Sergio Trevino; Deborah Gober-Beneze; debbie lewis; aaadinolfi@live.com Subject:Three Corners Ranch MPP19-0006/ H-2019-0006 Attachments:7E6C19BF-06F4-4EA2-AF36-6988ACFCD9C9.TRIM.MOV; ATT00001.txt; Meridian 5.15.19.pdf Please consider the attached with reference to Three Corners Ranch MPP19-0006/ H-2019-0006. Also, please include as part of the testimony submitted and provide to the Commissioners if possible. Thank you, Kendra Kendra Dean Neely Phone : 208.375.8580 ext # 111 Cell : 208.559.4006 Fax : 208.375.8588 May 14, 2019 TO: Stephanie Leonard, Associate Planner Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager FROM: Three Corners Homeowner’s Association Board SUBJECT: Three Corners Ranch MPP19-0006/ H-2019-0006 On behalf of the Three Corner’s Homeowners Association Board, and the homeowners, I respectfully submit the following points for consideration on why the Commission should approve the Developer’s plan as it was submitted with the ACHD approved road plan: I. APPLYING A POLICY IN A WAY THAT VIOLATES THE STATED PURPOSE FOR HAVING THE POLICY IN THE FIRST PLACE A. QUESTION PRESENTED What happens in the rare instance when the common application/interpretation of a policy violates the written purpose behind having the policy in the first place? B. RELEVANT LAW/RULES The Staff Report cites the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) as the basis for its recommendation. The Comp Plan states “The purpose of the City of Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan is to integrate the concerns and expressions of the community into a document that guides the City on how to grow and develop.” If a guideline doesn’t integrate the concerns and expressions of the community impacted, then by the very text Comp Plan, it should not be applied. The common application/interpretation of a policy should not become applied in a way that causes the unattended and negative consequence of not serving the stated purpose of having the policy in the first place. The policies were only meant to be applied when they integrate the concerns and expressions of an impacted community. C. APPLICATION In this case, staff has a default position that connectivity is king and always the best option. This situation is truly an example of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” The connectivity policy is meant to enhance impacted communities. It was also written in a vacuum envisioning a situation of woefully inadequate connectivity. Staff has a mindset that you must connect wherever you can without exception, not that the people who drafted the policy would have been pleased with how much connectivity is already present. At a certain point – you hit the point of not only diminishing returns, but you start to cause more real damage than any potential or implied good. In this case, you WILL create defacto collector roads that were never intended to be used in that fashion. There is a light at Eagle Road that is going to make a collector street in Bristol to Stafford and the direct Three Corners route very appealing to anyone with a GPS or mobile device, and a desire to avoid Chinden - especially when they start to expand it next year. This is not going to connect anyone in the community to anywhere they want to be connected to. The majority of the community impacted is strongly saying “no, we don’t want this.” Staff is not “integrating concerns or expressions” by applying their interpretation of this policy. They are doing the opposite. Another reason it was difficult to get staff to overcome their default position is they may have an inaccurate perspective of how many community members currently support the ACHD approved road plan. It’s common sense, but the people who are opposing something tend to be the loudest. Based on our conversation with staff, they seemed to genuinely believe that support of the ACHD approved plan was split 50/50 among the communities impacted, including Three Corners. This was what we found in our subdivision alone: 89% supported the ACHD approved plan (blue) while 11% did not (orange). (NOT 50/50) We do understand why staff could get the impression of 50/50 when this is clearly not the case. At the ACHD hearing, several people who attended came up after to show support for the ACHD approved plan but were not willing to speak at the hearing, while every person who showed up to oppose the development did speak. It is not intuitive for people to offer testimony for something that they are ok with. However, our homeowner survey better represents the wishes of the community effected by this. And it is illustrative of the majority of other subdivisions in the area. Drilling down further, when we asked those who opposed the ACHD approved plan why they didn’t approve of it, the only answer we got was that they “did not want more traffic”. So, we then showed them the plan recommended by Meridian staff. It has been extremely clear in each and every case that the ACHD approved plan was presented alongside the Meridian staff recommended plan, 100% of respondents choose the ACHD approved plan. Accordingly, we could not find that the Meridian staff recommended plan was responsive to community concerns in any objective way. Survey Support ACHD approved plan Do NOT support ACHD approved plan For this reason, we respectfully and in the stronge st possible terms urge the Commission to ask our community members which road plan they would select: the ACHD approved plan, or the Meridian Staff plan. Our own survey results found that there are community members, just as there were several at the ACHD hearing, who are simply opposed to any plan, any new traffic, any development. Our neighbors don’t always understand that simply opposing everything isn’t productive because it assumes that you can take away someone’s right to use their property. When they understand that the development will happen no matter what, and that they can minimize negative impacts by using their voice to express a preference of one thing over another– then you get down to whether a recommended change is really addressing their concerns. Everyone has a right to express their opinion – but that opinion should not be taken out of context and cited (for example) as support for Meridian staff recommendations when in fact that person would not support anything beyond keeping the land in its current bare state. We also respectfully ask that the Commission remember that a developer’s plan should not be denied or altered, because staff is listening to the loudest few, instead of the community as a whole. After all, the Comp Plan only exists to be a tool to “ integrate the concerns and expressions of the community into a document that guides the City on how to grow and develop.” D. CONCLUSION The Commission should not follow Staff’s recommendation to change the ACHD approved roadway plan and should approve the ACHD approved plan on the basis of the Comp Plan language alone: • While a small group of people have been the most vocal in speaking out against the plan as a whole, many of these objections would be voiced with regard to any plan and were not directed toward the ACHD approved roadway plan; • It has been extremely clear in each case that the A CHD approved plan was presented alongside the Meridian staff recommended plan, 100% of respondents choose the ACHD approved plan even when they initially opposed the ACHD approved plan; • If there are community members that prefer the Meridian proposed roadway changes over the ACHD approved plan, they are an extremely small group and certainly not representative of the community as a whole; • The Comp Plan clearly states that its purpose is to “integrate the concerns and expressions of the community into a document that guides the City on how to grow and develop”; • Since the majority of the communities impacted are strongly saying they do not want the Meridian Staff recommended changes because they are satisfied with the extensive connection network augmented by the ACHD approved roadway plan, and because they are concerned about the problems and real damage being caused which far exceeds the “potential” good, the ACHD approved plan should be approved on that basis alone. II. THE DANGERS AND PROBLEMS WITH CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC A. SAFETY Google “child hit by car near school”. You will get 456,000,000 results in .46 seconds. We understand not every result is an incident, but it is shocking how many incidents you can find. When I originally looked this up in March 2019, this is what I found for local examples: • Only one week prior, a teenager was hit in a crosswalk with flashing lights near Nampa High school at 7:40am. • In December, a Boise 3-year-old was hit and killed in her own neighborhood. • Also, in December, a teenager was hit near Timberline in a crosswalk . Driver cited for negligent driving. There is always a risk of this happening, but the East Three Corners Drive and Locust Grove intersection is the perfect storm of high-risk factors making it a terrible public safety decision to send any more traffic that way. • Ambrose School, a K-12 regional school without a bus system and 500+ students and staff/faculty • The Ambrose School is expanding their campus at the primary choke point of the Three Corners neighborhood and will have increased car and pedestrian foot traffic back and forth across Three Corners Drive between both campuses (so cut through traffic will flow from the Eagle Road light to this choke point between the campuses or vice versa). Map Below. • The choke points at the entry/exit point of the Three Corners neighborhood are narrower than Dunwoody and already handle significantly more traffic due to the school. • Given the Ambrose School is K-12, a large number of driving age students enter and exit by car throughout the day as well as park alongside the roads. • During high traffic times (morning and evening commute times in the area), traffic from Chinden already backs up well passed the entry/exit point to Three Corners and often blocks access to and from our neighborhood as it is, even with the “do not block signs”. • The Ambrose School has an agreement with Valley Life Church across Locust Grove for a home- schooling program and you see children going back and forth across Locust Grove for this program. That is not to say Ambrose isn’t being safe. You se e them ushering children back and forth with flags or even using a truck as shields to protect the children from potential injury. But if a child can get hit in a crosswalk with flashing lights, it should tell you there is only so much you can do when a road, or two, runs directly through your school operations. • Additionally, there is another school directly across from the existing Ambrose campus – Central Academy. This brings the total to four (4) separate campuses in a very small area – all abuzz with children and the related activities. • After hours, many of the children in surrounding neighborhoods will play on Ambrose’s playground equipment, run with their dogs, or kick a soccer ball in its field. It is the de facto park. Based on what we have personally experienced and based on the complaints and concerns that the Board (and the City of Meridian) has received, the Board firmly believes it is bordering on negligence to send more traffic to that intersection. By far, the top complaint we have received as a Board since the inception of the Board has been issues related to traffic safety around the school. Currently, there are children and parents darting across East Three Corners Drive to get to the school. I have, personally, had no less than four close calls where people were in a rush and simply did not look before they walked across East Three Corners Drive. This is not limited to drop off and pick up – it happens during functions like games, plays, etc., - or simply a parent in the middle of the day going to volunteer. Some of these individuals are pedestrians, others have parked on the north lot because the school simply does not have enough parking and they are parking in the overflow area. The demand to connect Eagle Rd to Sweet Valley for no other reason than it has become the common practice in applying this policy is ill-conceived and dangerous, and it ignores legitimate public safety concerns presented by the community. It is not if but when a child will be injured, or worse. The concerns of the community should trump the blind application of a policy, especially when the stated purpose of having the policy in the first place is to integrate the concerns and expressions of the community . To be clear, our community does not want this, and the majority of the other communities directly impacted also voted against it. There is no objective way to justify this connection. B. SCHOOL GENERATED TRAFFIC While safety is the top concern, it goes without saying the traffic generated at these two schools is a nightmare and particularly in the morning, will not provide any relief for congestion. Photographs have been provided by homeowners direct ly to the city, but we have attached a sampling of the parking along both sides of the streets which greatly congests the streets. This is also easily observable during drop-off and pick-up times. C. BACKED UP TRAFFIC ON LOCUST GROVE ROAD Again, while safety is the top concern, most of the time you cannot turn left out of Three Corners Drive due to the traffic backed up from the Chinden light, which is only 1/10 mile away – and this will shrink even more when Chinden widens. Turning left into Three Corners is a challenge for the same reason. This is already an over-congested area, so to add more traffic seems like a counter-productive move. Photographs have been provided by homeowners direct ly to the city. Additionally, drone footage is being attached to show the back-up traffic. This is also easily observable, especially during morning and evening commute times. D. CONCLUSION The Commission should not follow Staff’s recommendation to change the ACHD approved roadway plan because the changes create a situation that is dangerous, ill-conceived, and against public policy: • East Three Corners Drive and Locust Grove Road is a perfect storm of high-risk factors that make safety of grave concern, specifically with regard to cut through traffic from the Eagle Road light; • The School generated traffic of a private regional school with no bus system across from another school with three campuses currently (and a fourth to be built) also creates unique traffic problems that make connectivity inappropriate; • The close proximity to the Chinden light adds more traffic back-up that makes the cut-through path and connectivity unwise. For the forgoing reasons, the Three Corners Homeowners Association Board (representing the majority of homeowners) supports the Developer’s application; opposes Meridian Staff recommendation to amend the road plan; and supports the ACHD approved road plan. Thank you for your consideration. Kendra Neely, President All members of the Three Corners HOA board, and homeowners. EXHIBIT A: THREE CORNERS SUBDIVISION & MERIDIAN STAFF PROPOSED CUT THROUGH ACHD Proposed Cut-Through from Eagle to Locust Grove: Goes through Ambrose Campus and comes out next to Central Academy and Home School program. ALSO SEE ATTACHMENT: DRONE VIDEO OF CAMPUSES AND PROXIMITY TO CHINDEN LIGHT Central Academy Existing Ambrose Campus & Parking Current Overflow Parking Future Ambrose Campus Expansion & Parking Heavy Pedestrian Crossing (yellow) Home School Program EXTRA TRAFFIC BARRELING TOWARDS SCHOOLS/ CHILDREN EXHIBIT B: PARKING PHOTOGRAPHS 1 Charlene Way From:Kendra Dean <kendradean@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2019 9:15 PM To:Charlene Way Cc:Chris Johnson Subject:Re: Three Corners Ranch MPP19-0006/ H-2019-0006 FYI: Since it is a public record, the testimony should be listed as it was signed, which is my legal name: Kendra Neely. Sent from my iPhone On May 15, 2019, at 3:09 PM, Charlene Way < cway@meridiancity.org > wrote: Thank you for your comments. All public testimony and comments will be located in the Project files for viewing and can be Located at the webpage below: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/browse.aspx?dbid=0 HOW TO PROVIDE COMMENTS Any interested persons wishing to testify are welcome to do so at the public hearing listed on this notification. Oral testimony may be limited to 3 minutes per person. Written testimony may be submitted prior to the hearing date either by mail or in person to Meridian City Clerk, 33 E. Broadway Suite 104, Meridian, Idaho 83642 or by email to cityclerk@meridiancity.org . All written testimony and all materials presented at the hearing become property of the City of Meridian and public records subject to the provisions of the Idaho Public Records Act. Applications are subject to change throughout the public hearing process and it is incumbent on interested persons to monitor such changes by following the process in person, online, or by contacting City staff. See http://bit.ly/208PH Frequently Asked Questions https://meridiancity.org/planning/general/faq.html Public Hearing Notices https://meridiancity.org/phnotices/ From: Kendra Dean < kendradean@hotmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 2:25 PM To: Meridian City Clerk < MeridianCityClerk@meridiancity.org > Cc: Sergio Trevino < STrevino@OMNIPURE.COM >; Deborah Gober-Beneze 2 <dgoberbeneze@outlook.com >; debbie lewis < tdlewf@yahoo.com >; aaadinolfi@live.com Subject: Three Corners Ranch MPP19-0006/ H-2019-0006 Please consider the attached with reference to Three Corners Ranch MPP19-0006/ H-2019- 0006. Also, please include as part of the testimony submitted and provide to the Commissioners if possible. Thank you, Kendra Kendra Dean Neely Phone : 208.375.8580 ext # 111 Cell : 208.559.4006 Fax : 208.375.8588 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.