HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-24 Mike and Malissa Bernard (2) To Honorable Mayor Simison and to the Members of the City of Meridian City Council,
Since you were directed by counsel not to weigh written testimony at the reconsideration request on
June 91", I am submitting this testimony on July 24, 2020 for your consideration. Thank you in advance,
and we are wishing you (and yours)the very best.
I am against the Boll-Cook LLC Delano plan as it stands, and we remain underwhelmed yet
overwrought with this proposal. Development for profits needn't trump the needs, safety, and
comforts of those families that number 211 households in established Alpine Pointe.
I will say that the meetings with T. Hethe Clark have been generally light and pleasant, but he has a
client with particular demands and a push for a hasty rezone and annexation without a careful plan.
This is merely a carbon copy of the Jan 2019 plan, so I would not praise the new plat as hard work or a
great effort. Furthermore, all development should put forth more funds towards impacts to the
communities, schools, and infrastructure of our main travel corridors.
_ T
ONO - _
Cu ere nt p ropo sa I—car—bon copy o f th e J an
2419 pi an,but insteadofR-15ontheCook
p a rce I,d e n sity i n cre ased to R-49
There is not a named builder or parent company;there is not a target price point;there are
conceptual housing renderings;there are no filed floor plans...too many dangling modifiers and what-
if's. Delano is copy-and-paste and peel-and-stick infill design, whereas other applicants present many
details. This annexation and rezone without dedication, passion, and commitment will result in the
passing-off of the project to the highest bidder, resulting in future P and Z hearings and City Council
meetings likely with a proposed MDA, and the process is begun anew.
Infill projects should be held to stringent standards,and not the bare minimums to barely satisfy the
Comprehensive Plan. Meridian has the reputation as a premier city for many uses: business,family,
and quality of life. These infill projects should have a vision, and they should be held to a standard of
quality.
Delano did not adequately address the density at the northern border to adjoining neighbors'
expectations nor in adherence the direction of Councilmembers Bernt and Cavener...these lots could
be geared for floor plans with a third bay on the garage/floor level flex rooms for larger lot transition to
those lots bordering at Alpine Pointe; Schumacher's 16727sf, Eldredge 15987 SF;Pitzer 15682 SF; Argo
15246 sf,- lob 13765 SF; King 13765 SF; Ostyn 15900 SF= 15296 SF average lot size average in
comparison to a 5661 SF average lot at the North at Delano? That is nearly a three-to-one ratio, not a
two-to-one. I do not think neighbors are seeking apples-to-apples,though there is much room for
improvement. A lot size nearing 7500-plus or more to the north is much more appropriate, as
illustrated below, and a lot size of 7500 to 10000 SF would be more compatible, one story.
ACCESS ON
tI
y p
�x •1 r F I`
• I y ms j .ws y i
_ Lot sire
�� -- • change
Lot size change to regain lot
count _ 5
N Dashwood PI is still in flux about closure. I ask you to please name N Dashwood PI in City Council as
a closed cul-de-sac/dead-end...that is what PLACE means in Ada and Meridian codes;this is within the
Council's authority.
Title S: Public Ways and Property,
City of MV -- r i d i a n UnKorrin Street
Naming Chapter Z, 8-2-6
YL�,.se+e�a mr,.�ilriyra#n4'r.�.+s.-w r�e..�rsR w�wMC•.oP1•o nnY�aarR ib rr/M�.AIrl.Aa•OQ
(7') 14��rj Ax �t�" �rr�f UC3rI OIZAh Uri
{6) Place A norlh-south cul-tle-sac or deatl-end streei
r— r..e r ru.rer�oearrMi tr R.mff,..el.rR�4h d�rdrrl��ft
�u i.�•s �.r..�rorw
ttF-!
•�M4.4�.a tM•Pr��Er�f/Avia...Q r.�ti�4..s�a�+awa tLtnS+�...�1..0..e ArR��P�F•R�!�•iY
a YH6A06.1.Yipi1.4.Qitle�
•s�,�r..��rs� rrTarrrare:sr�ti.r_ `r..rEre P�w.nr•r-:rn rs�rr,
11414 ACCESS TO STREETS:
Ibe foil M stands Ad apph u6w Amm a--'d by C�C" . :'t=
axial t&u mom raa safdg aver aft stream.
A The tit iWderds sbali appb z am usr and or gages±x takes dart xc ns to an amrral add ar ta�tottadna►:Pmr�a��,headed or use yr do of dx p�opem:
L Um amass to a fori street rs atiaiie thf qpl=sha l secxSmt the 5.2 ricuken pim w tare accS isom aa local Zea
Rlxte acc ss re a Tara street is nas arailaEk.drr acFpem shall be regtar�S re giant crossr:ss xprrsi es aszments a�osasg prepzraes 1�s sta3 s�tendty to apph primarrls m
u•�:atu� fPatraas exreadrot �' ^rdurr=>*e ,- rnrapxedq ,e*�aartrest uu.
Many Alpine Pointe residents are against the R-40 high density designation,and feel any housing on
the Cook parcel should be limited to two stories and R-15 for transition from abundant three-story
high density product;just because this has been a secondary sticking point behind Dashwood does not
mean neighbors support another high density project--we need a transitional project of lower
intensity and height.There is the future of the Wong and Enzler parcels to consider as well. We have
housing diversity in spades. This could result in 3000 people living south of Wainwright, East of Eagle
Rd,and West of Champion Park, north of Ustick. This would bring the population of this City Square
Mile to 6000-7000 people;the average population in CHICAGO city proper is 11,842 people per square
mile. Source: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/chicagocitvillinois/PST045219
Bollinger 66 prvpo�d -•L_� fr_ � = _�f�
Cook 96 prapose•d 3 D M LSO .�_ _ _ v COMMERCIAL
Stellar 134 proposed 1��r Traffic
lex = �
4-p $O campiete
Brickyard 270 _
Enzler tbd 25-6o max
Wong tbd } -zoo max
B MFA COAII M ERCIAL L
v�us 671 to 906 Traff i e F#
`COMMERCIAL I RAF r3C residential Q _ 21
units 1 _= .._
Perhaps 2 story, R-15 density instead on the Cook parcel for appropriate transition from the three
story Brickyard and Stellar three story product.
Attractive and varied facades of 2-story attached R-15 product, in lieu of 3 to four story high density
product. The fire department doesn't have aerial equipment readily available to fight fires for taller
product, per MFD report.
I. Vat
aiT � i 7■ ■
*. � �
To state a fact: there are four out of eight households with families with special needs/disabilities on
N Dashwood PI,with three residents in a wheelchair. These families chose a cul-de-sac for medical
reasons and for the limited traffic access and safety thereof. Many of my neighbors have invested
tens of thousands of dollars to modify homes to their particular needs, and chose their homes for the
more universal design aspects of wider hallways and open floorplans, and for the low traffic court.
Furthermore, the traffic patterns of the future via Alpine Pointe are not safe and will destroy our
neighborhood's peace and character, and not just through the Delano proposal. We already have the
looming future traffic of the Commercial Collector. When the heavy traffic comes a motion will be
made to amend the MSM at ACHD and Wainwright will be a full-bird Collector, and these streets are
not designed to technical standards for Collector streets at Wainwright at the minimum 330' distance
between access points and our streets are primarily front-on housing, against Collector street
policy. Centrepoint Way of the future is disguised without signage as a grassy landscaped strip, and its
ownership is not revealed on Ada County Assessor online land records as a ROW. Furthermore, N
Dashwood PI was not signed to be continued.
The street access proximities on mid-mile Collector Wainwright and mid-mile Collector Camas Cr are
not safe and are not to ACHD technical standards of 330-feet, centerline to centerline. It matters not
of their past intended purpose of design as residential streets of lighter traffic use and current
supposed "local"designation: if they are deemed and groomed to be the mid-mile collectors of the
future,then they should be held to Collector access technical standards for the safety of our citizens,
regardless of current traffic counts, because the traffic is coming.
Think of nearby Records Ave as well. The present and future development across from us and that
development present and future in close proximity(we are seeing five stories now)will utilize
Wainwright heavily to Rose point/Lacewood and/or Linwood to Camas Creek to McMillan or Locust
Grove, as will those cut-through drivers seeking to avoid Eagle Rd. When this area and corridor is fully
quasi-urbanized, as it seems to be the "new" plan whereas our neighborhood dates to 2005, it is unfair
and unsafe to expect our R-4 neighborhood to bear most of the woes of cut-through traffic that other
nearby or similar neighborhoods do not share equitably.
From the ACHD Report, 5-19-2019, pages 6, 7, 5, 9, 11
C. Findings for Consideration
1. Collector Road Policies — Development
Function: The primary function of a collector is to intercept traffic from the local street system and
carry that traffic to the nearest arterial. A secondary function is to service adjacent property. Access
will be limited or controlled. Collectors may also be designated as bicycle and bus routes.
Wainwright Drive is designated in the Master Street Map as a residential collector roadway and is
improved as a 36-foot street section with vertical curb gutter and a combination of 5-foot detached
and 7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk from Rosepoint Avenue east to Eagle Road.
2. Condition of Area Roadways
Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH)
Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Classification Traffic Count Level of Service
*"State Highway 55 None Principal Arterial 1,966 NIA
Eagle Road
Ustick Road None Principal Arterial 1,377 Better than "E°
Centrepoint Way 50-feet Collector 139 Better than °D"
Wainwright Drive None Collector 125 Better than 'D"
Dashwood Place 50-feet Local NIA NIA
ACHD Master Street Map: ACHD Policy Section 3111,1 requires the Master Street Map
(MSM) guide the right-of-way acquisition, collector street requirements, and specific roadway
features required through development. This segment of Collector Road is designated in the
MSM as a Commercial Collector with 2-lanes and on-street bike lanes, a 36-foot street section
within 54-feet of right-of-way-
From ACHD Technical Standards COLLECTOR ACCESS DISTANCE, MINIMUM 330' Spacing
Twb" w: JL4---* 5Vx 4rs4 n- Y-'."w.--Sww 1—.+*y IV-W s
wa VOW CrrraAn) f.-os #b
*ab. 63ri LjJ2jPM2fta te. Mll 1 'wig#.QPM 24rt{it7MOIL C-4 r Iw.A.�41*0i -P.w ?s]
1 fh Orr 2r3lk Cj-V.M 'WYN.4nIb j74V%dMP*ft
F�T�4#R� �Lt�aldirrF 1�rfkl'1�JRl �K+�A�]' e��k117Mlrn d�fY�Yf]r
#'cbl d Lltnll for Local 3itrse'1.� eop- tamkon Rw w-' t* i OWVMj O Pon rky' WV0
ifi WO Y#b Uf M Tou VTO
I.W.
3a NAP" + 330- 20& t50
q-S hAMP" 33G' WIS' $SQ
(Swr-Min ekX17 WM■O of rrlaaia.-G-rwww h to 0641EMFM�!
r201S.#.4 bW�r•+X K39CMhgpn C.fl
EX*~-vPV& ■hRY ba 0owalgir1fd 4n mccwwdMf%cR wvfth Vmm cr'KsHMw In Tafti* 2
be7tSw .ti.CfJrG[rtFaM�
AR rM-W 0gWMWeYfMWi am h MVbMW t So Oo lid prat NUN 7WKM dr1d at bftjk t
" Mewl W"Vl#one*CM" ow BUOa of 9~&M4H'M 4t VM A'e l I"WM
rl 3 43IF~w27 R 10 C1a gied. l7p7 9.00 Of SeWP7d J K 3PP4C-2113iR] i#LiR
ew lcr_rfMU w -MF-WrP L.n of Fid.d■yt 1hMM WM I rro."t ono n
From the ACHD Technical Requirements pdf, Section 7200, page 29 of 75
https://www.achdidaho.org/Documents/ACHDpolicyManual/7000to9000/Section7200 TechnicalRequir
ements.pdf
7206.3.6 Traffic Conflicts
Traffic volumes typically found on collector roadways can be in conflict with
adjacent land uses_ Off-street parking, off-street maneuver areas,
minimum direct lot access, and other circulation and design elements should
be designed to minimize these conflicts_
Collector streets in residential areas typically carry lOw to moderate volumes
of traffic. The level of traffic should not interfere with an area's livability_
Page 30 and 31 of 75
7206_4 Access Considerations and Requirements
72064.1 Access Points
All acoess points associated with development applications shall be determined
in accordance with the policies in this section and Section 7202_ Access points
d- Res_469(7113194) 7200-24
d- Res_675(1129103)- Res. 69D(1 Of15fD3);Ord.201 (4112lO6);Ord_211 (12115110);Ord_233
(1125117);Ord_239(11f29117);Ord_238 (12f12f18)
shall be reviewed only for a development application that is being considered
by the lead land use agency. Approved access points may be relocated and/or
restricted in the future if the land use intensifies, changes, or the property
redevelops_
See the illustration below for the unsafe distance measurements if Dashwood is connected to Delano.
This is safe for low traffic of a limited use cul-de-sac,and dangerous if the traffic load is increased.
Note: the distance between Dashwood and the future Centrepoint collector is only 540 feet, only three
houses away. It seems unnecessary to "over-connect" at Dashwood. Remember the 330-ft collector
access separation technical standard.
z
Unsafe distance-for Collector access-points of Dashwood to Rose point,other than limited cul- a-sactraffi
214.82 fl
540.12 fl
°3
m n`
-_8,1nami G z WL'JainwcipHt Do
z
�l
Connection to A I' a Pointe 788 feet
Connection to Alpine Pointe 618 feet
'y38gF ry `
Ln z
Page 57 of 75 Technical Requirements, section 7200 ACHD pdf
08.5-9 Sk)pping Sight Distance
A safe stopping sight distance is required for all vertical and horizontal curves_
The m iin i mu m sig ht distance al lowed is 200-feet_
Yet if one is stopped at N Dashwood PI,the sightlines fall short for curves. A vehicle is not in sight at
200 foot with fences, landscaping, and the curve present in relationship of N Dashwood PI to
Wainwright curve to the West. This might be ok for a very low traffic volume at Dashwood; add any
more access traffic,then the potential for a crash or near-miss increases drastically.
x
s,
P
E wew o
176,54 fr
200 q3 ft
3
From this vantage point at Dashwood, one can see the close proximity to Rosepoint, and the lack of
adequate sight distance due to the fencing,curve, utility location, light posts, and now very mature
landscape and trees of much thicker caliper on Wainwright,the collector...it is named a collector in
ACHD reports. This was Google Street view in 2012. The line of sight is woefully inadequate for
increased traffic volumes. The approximate 200 foot point is just past the maple tree (sixth tree) in the
northern border to the West, between two green maples (one you cannot see easily behind the sparse
tree in the foreground). This is also an elevated point for Google Maps. Imagine the sightlines for a
lower vehicle and the now mature vegetation and view obscured by fences.
f
ai-
Here's the same view, from my car this summer, with matured landscapes. The minimum 200-ft
line of sight is out of my view, even if all landscaped is removed. Imagine adding additional car trips to
this...it would not be safe.
- == a
Here is the approximate 200-ft line of sight point from Wainwright. Rosepoint is to the left, and
Dashwood is out of the line of sight. 2015 BING maps
E Wainwright Dr
A
Here is the Bing Maps point of view 2015 from Rosepoint, Dashwood to the Left across Wainwright.
The 200 foot minimum sight line from Dashwood is between the two larger maples closest to the Stop
sign in view across the street on the border of Wainwright, on a curve. This is not an appropriate line of
sight for the proposed de facto collector traffic volume of Dashwood if Dashwood is connected to
through traffic.
Onto the issue of connectivity: it seems that if N Dashwood PI is closed to vehicular traffic,there are
two points for this connectivity to be realized in the future-at the Jasmine stub to the Enzler parcel
and the future connection of N Centrepoint Way will provide adequate connectivity to Alpine Pointe.
It will be an approximate 618 feet to Alpine Pointe from Delano via Centrepoint Way, and 788 feet from
Delano to Alpine Pointe via Jasmine to the future street to Rogue River. That is approximately 4 Alpine
Pointe house lot lengths and 6 Alpine Pointe house lot lengths away, respectively, when those
connections are built in the future.
E Woinwright Cr - \� Y - �^l Walnwriph
Connection to A I' a Pointe 788fe t
4b w[agle Viwi Ln
Connection Alpine Pointe 618fee
m
a
j f W Jaun ine Ln z
Most importantly, it is within your purview and authority to close N Dashwood PI to through traffic, for
the City has the "final authority to implement conditions related to the transportation
system." This is from the agenda packet for July 22, 2020 at ACHD.
ACHD
Commission Meeting Agenda
6:00 PM-Wednesday,July 22,2020
h•�lichael L-Brokaw Auditorium
NOTE:Pursuant to Idaho Code 40-141516),the ACHD Commission has the authority to accept and
approve all subdivision plats as to continuity of highway pattern,widths,drainage,right-of-way
construction standards,traffic flow,traffic demand volumes within or outside the boundaries of the
proposed development,and other matters associated with the function of the highway district.The
ACHD Commission does not have the final authority to impose any conditions related to traffic
caused by any new development applications. Pursuant to the Idaho Supreme Court decision in
KMST,LLC vs.Ada County, 1381daho 55T,681-682,2003,only the land use agency(City or County)
has the final authority to approve or reject the proposed development,including the final authority to
implement conditions related to the transportation system. ACHD is not governed by the Idaho Local
Land Use Planning Act,Idaho Code 67-6501,which only authorizes land use agencies jCity andlor
County)to make land use decisions.i.e.development density,zoning,area of impact and
comprehensive plan amendments.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Malissa Bernard
4025 N Dashwood PI
Meridian ID 83646
208.362.3295