HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-21 Laura Trairatnobhas
Charlene Way
From:Laura Trairatnobhas <lauratrairatnobhas@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2020 7:38 AM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Letter to the Meridian City Council and Mayor Simison, re: the BollCook Development
April 21, 2020
In regard to the proposed Delano Subdivision
Mayor Simison and Members of the City Council,
Over the past two years, the residents of the Alpine Pointe subdivision have signed petitions and written
countless letters to ACHD, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Meridian Mayor and City
Council, expressing our opposition to several aspects of the planned Delano Subdivison, located just south of
Alpine Pointe. We have appeared faithfully and en masse at meeting after meeting, articulating our concerns
and presenting thoughtful, workable solutions to the problems we would face if the Delano development goes
ahead without modification. Although the original Delano application under the auspices of Jim Conger and his
company DevCo has been withdrawn, it seems clear that the new application by BollCook LLC, with Hethe
Clark (a lawyer who represented DevCo on the original application) as applicant, is still DevCo’s project. There
is essentially no difference between the DevCo application and the BollCook application, and for this reason
we feel that our efforts as a whole (that is, our letters, petitions and meeting participation in regard to both
projects) should be taken into account by the Council. We should not have to start our efforts from scratch
when the “new” applicant has simply picked up where the previous one left off.
Our concerns over density, the forced opening of Dashwood, and the proposed use of the grassy median
behind Brooksburg Place as a commercial collector have been explicated so many times that I do not wish to
bore you by repeating them. Instead, I would like to make several observations pertinent to the process itself.
First, after the most recent Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting (4/16/2020), there was a
consensus among Alpine Pointe neighbors that not all P&Z members seemed to have read all of our letters
submitted prior to the meeting, and therefore did not fully understand our concerns. (This observation was
based on comments made during the meeting by several Commissioners.) This may be partially our own fault
~ we may have submitted our letters too close to the deadline, leading to inadequate time for the
Commissioners to read everything with care. Nonetheless, if written testimony is truly “weighted equally with
verbal testimony at meetings”, it is crucial that all letters and emails be carefully read by all participants,
regardless of time constraints.
Next, the issue of how the online P&Z meeting was conducted. We truly appreciate all the effort it must have
taken to organize this via Zoom. We would, however, respectfully ask that all speakers be given the courtesy
of appearing on video. It was disconcerting to see the applicant, Mr. Clark, given the humanizing privilege of
being seen as well as heard, while the neighborhood delegates were simply black boxes without faces. Zoom
has the capability of showing all participants on video, and it would be appreciated if all participants are given
the same treatment in future. This is, again, important if all testimony is to be weighted equally.
1
I would also like to ask the Council, as well as P&Z, to consider developing a quantifiable definition of
“connectivity” ~ the buzzword du jour. How much is not enough connectivity? Should the burden of
connectivity be shared equally in a community, or should one unlucky subdivision bear the weight for four or
five others? And perhaps most importantly, how much is too much? A useful starting parameter might be for
the council to ask “How many connecting roads would I like to have running through my own subdivision, for
my own convenience, and at what point would I begin to feel that my subdivision is being unfairly burdened
with the traffic of other developments?” We cannot discuss connectivity rationally if we cannot quantify it.
Since connectivity appears to be one of Meridian’s highest development priorities, it needs to be quantifiable
if it is to be meaningful and beneficial.
Another crucial issue is that of signage. As I’m sure you’re aware by now, neither the Dashwood culdesac nor
the strip of land behind Brooksburg was properly signed. Dashwood has never had a sign indicating explicitly
that the street would be opened for development in the future. The grassy strip behind Brooksburg appears to
be a setback or median to divide the subdivision from the business park, with many large utility boxes fronting
the street. It does not in any way look like an easement for a major collector road. Someone fell down in their
duty to sign these two crucial areas, and no one is willing to take responsibility for this failure. Meanwhile, the
residents of Alpine Pointe, who bought their homes in good faith, are left holding the bag: reduced property
values, high traffic noise, congestion at the Wainright/Eagle Road light, and possibly increased crime. ACHD
and the City of Meridian need to make it clear who is responsible for signage in the future and they need to
specify who will enforce the placement of signage.
Under current Meridian code, written notice of new development must be given to any resident within a mere
300 feet of the development. This is a laughably outdated requirement, which may have worked 30 years ago
when Meridian was mostly cows, but does not work now, with multifamily housing and large shopping
complexes going up all over the city. No one in Alpine Pointe was given notice of the gigantic Brickyard
apartment complex being built almost on our doorstep, and in particular, we were not warned that traffic
from this complex would be funneled out to Eagle Road via dual collector roads (Centerpointe and Dashwood)
running through our subdivision. For this reason alone, the city notifications code needs to be updated so that
anyone living within a half-mile radius (2,640 feet) from any development project should be sent written
notice.
Finally, while I appreciate one of the P&Z Commissioner’s comment that we can’t make plans based on what
“might” be developed on a particular piece of land in the future (given that zoning designations can be
changed fairly easily), we most certainly should be able to produce traffic projections based on Meridian’s
spectacular growth over the last ten years, as well as the unprecedented growth of southwestern Idaho as a
whole. If ACHD cannot or will not make accurate projections, then Meridian must find a way to do so. The
planning process cannot be carried out effectively if a vital part of the equation is missing. I fear that we will
always be reacting rather than acting ~ trying to play catch-up as growth spirals out of control, rather than
leading our valley’s growth according to our own standards.
Thank you for reading this very long letter. I hope what I have written will help spur changes that will benefit
our city and our citizens. We may be doing well, but we can always strive to do better.
Best Regards,
Laura Trairatnobhas
4621 N. Camas Creek Way
Meridian ID 83646
Phone: 208-275-9823
2
3