HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-23 John Buckner
Chris Johnson
From:Robert Simison
Sent:Monday, April 26, 2021 9:27 AM
To:John Buckner; Liz Strader; Joe Borton; Brad Hoaglun; Treg Bernt; Jessica Perreault;
Luke Cavener
Cc:Chris Johnson
Subject:RE: Compass Pointe - Oppose with Suggestions
John,
Thank you for your email. I know each person appreciates the information and perspective you have provided. As this is
an open application, the City Council and myself (as a potential tie breaking vote) are not able to comment on the
project outside of the public hearing. I am copying our City Clerk so your email and this response can be included into
the record.
Respectfully,
Mayor Robert Simison
City of Meridian
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.
From: John Buckner <john.buckner7@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 10:57 PM
To: Robert Simison <rsimison@meridiancity.org>; Liz Strader <lstrader@meridiancity.org>; Joe Borton
<jborton@meridiancity.org>; Brad Hoaglun <bhoaglun@meridiancity.org>; Treg Bernt <tbernt@meridiancity.org>;
Jessica Perreault <jperreault@meridiancity.org>; Luke Cavener <lcavener@meridiancity.org>
Subject: Compass Pointe - Oppose with Suggestions
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Members of the Council,
As a resident of Meridian and member of the community you represent, I strongly urge you to reject the Compass Pointe
development at the intersection of Locust Grove and Victory, with approval for the development conditioned upon a
revised application for a rezoning application of R-8 and minimum unit reduction of 12 units for a maximum total of 25
units. Alternatively, I recommend approval of an R-2 or R-4 re-zoning development, which would help meet the
Comprehensive Plan’s goal of adding a mixture of diverse housing that accommodates diverse income levels. R-4 and R-
2 zoning districts would accommodate a craftsman style of housing that does not drastically alter the character of the
community, it offers an option for more luxury, and it offers a favorable return for the developer.
Why should I, a new resident of Meridian and former Californian, concern myself with land use and developments?
Haven’t I benefited from development, and isn’t it hypocritical of me to suggest we slow development – to close the
door behind me? As a native of California, I have witnessed decades of the consequences of overpopulation mixed with
poor fiscal management, poor planning and poor coordination. I moved my family away from California and its legacy of
bad policies toward the “charm and character” of Meridian, Idaho. I care because I want Meridian to hold onto the
legacy that drew me and which continues to draw many others, but we must pursue strategic and guided growth as the
Comp Plan says, rather than planning that is without infrastructural coordination and without consideration of the
1
community which it affects.
Two values chiefly depicted in the Comprehensive plan are Meridian’s legacy and stewardship of public trust. The
current application fails to uphold these values and for several reasons. First, the Comp Plan lists as an action item to
“encourage compatible use and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land”. The surrounding districts at
the subject intersection range from R-4 to R-8 and would be drastically disrupted by the housing options and size
requirements of an R-15. The multi-family units sharply clash with the single-family homes and the gated entry offers a
cold and exclusive aesthetic which is foreign to the community yet upon which the passage of the application depends.
Furthermore, the rezoning choice is drastically mismatched and disruptive to the community because it is
unprecedented. A look at the zoning map shows that R-15 zones are situated at major roads like Meridian, Eagle and
Fairview, which coincides with the Comp Plan’s guidance that such high-density zoning “must be strategically located to
public transportation, community services and employment areas”, features which are also foreign to our
neighborhood. Along Locust Grove, other R-15 zones are placed at sites next to commercial and office-use zoning
districts, not intersections embedded within a community of suburban style homes. Proceeding with the current
application with unqualified support then conveys a sense of poor planning at best and aggressive development at
worst. Is this the kind of planning legacy that we want for our great city? Given the abundance of opposition expressed
by my neighbors, does such planning convey stewardship of public trust?
Another issue is infrastructural coordination. I have been made well aware, rather unsympathetically by members of the
Planning & Zoning Commission, of the City’s distinct operation and jurisdiction from the Ada County Highway District
(ACHD). Surely, this does not indemnify the city from making sound and meaningful efforts to conduct planning that
takes infrastructure into account. One manifest opportunity for planning that is more holistic is the problem of
congestion in our neighborhood. While it is true that the city does not determine the traffic remediation activities of the
ACHD, it is certainly true that the City indirectly contributes to the traffic problem based on the volume of units it
approves for development, and the potential volume of drivers that come with it. Surely the City bears some
responsibility when the Comp Plan says “Without guided growth and development, overcrowding, congestion, safety,
community identity, and overall deterioration of the current quality of life and living may result”. Given that the
intersection and Locust Grove in particular are already the location of congestion, is it not in the public’s interest and the
City’s stewardship of public trust to mediate guided growth through the developments it approves? How will the
planned development, in the midst of prolific testimonials about traffic, reflect on the City’s legacy of contributing “to
livability and a high quality of life” of its current residents?
These are but a couple reasons worth consideration. Other issues include affordability for prospective buyers, the
limitations of the traffic information at this intersection, and abuse of public trust due to a lack of transparency in the
planning application. I have contributed several hours, words and thoughts to this situation because I want to be a part
of the solution. I am not anti-growth, but I am for thoughtful growth, I am for the legacy of Meridian. If the policies and
governance of California worked, I would likely still be there. I want to help keep the charm and character of Meridian as
it is. Honor the stewardship of public trust you've been given and listen to your constituents. Be part of the solution for
thoughtful and guided growth.
Respectfully,
John Buckner
Green Valley
2