HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Terri IngramTz,~~EI~~~B
,.,
M,4YC ~ S OFFICE
To: Mayor DeWeerd and the Meridian City Counal; C'Tv t%` "~~4-r~zAi~
Re: Raaberry Crossing
January 25, 2004
I am writing concerning an item on the Cily Counal Meeting agenda for Tuesday, February 3, 2004.
Before you wifi he a request for approval of a subdivision named Raaberry Crossing located at 4379
N. Loaut Grove, Meridian. I am requesting that you do not approve the proposal as written.
My name is Teni Ingram. I live at 4320 N. Locust Grove, Meridian. Directly aaoss the street from the
proposed development.
This development has been badly planed and badly exearted since day one. Your couna7 was wise
enough to have the developer withdraw their first apptiaation under the name Blooming Meadows. I
believe this applaaton is almost as bad. The owners, Carl and Bonnie Retterman, have hired a new
planning consultant in pursuit of approval underthe name Raaberry Crossing. A short synopsis of the
history of th~ project beginning with the first P&Z meeting;
June 2003- Planning and Zoning recommended denial of the applications on the basis of
several Rams. P8Z recommended that the developers obtain a street connection to Loaist
Grove at Star Lane and that the developers hold a neighborhood meeting-something that had
been neglected in the planning process.
• June 30, 2003- The developer sponsored a neighborhood meeting. 25-30 people attended
that meeting. The developer Yoid' us what they were going to do. The neighbors objected to
the proposed density and to the cennedion to Locust Grove at Star Lane. Fudher we had
serious concerns about pedestrian traffic to the elemerrtary and high schools.
July t, 2003- Stating that °the P&Z Commission was swayed by the public opposition to the
Comprehensive Plan that happened to manifest itself on this project."The developer appealed
to the City Council to overturn the denial of the application. The developer presented the
original proposal to the City Counal wtttr a few `r~smetic' changes. You may recall that the
Counal Auditorium was standing room only with neighbors attending in opposition to the
proposed project. City Counal reprimanded the developerforwasting Counal time, P8Z time,
and the neighbors' time. They further stated that density was obviousty an issue with the
neighbors and asked the developer to withdraw the application and start over This time
starting with a neighborhood meeting in which they listened to the neighbors rather than just
informing them of what was going to be done.
August 25, 2003• The developer sponsored a neighbortrood meeting. 20-25 people attended.
The developer introduced a new planning consultant and presented the new proposal. This
time the R-15 townhouses were gone but in their place were 3 light office lots. Neghbors were
not happy with the light office concept but were told by the planner that another option was a
Cirde K or a gas station. Neighbors asked io have a member of Heritage Sub be put on the
design and the CCR cemmittees of Raabeny Grassing. (This has still not been done.} By the
end of the meeting, mast neighbors wen: stiff not happy with the IigM office but were
encouraged wtth the fad that the planner was taking notes and appeared to be listening. The
neighbors asked that when our concerns were addressed in the plan, the developers hold
another meeting to review the changes.
September 1, 2003- The developer sponsored the second neighborhood meeting. Turnout
was low. Those of us who did attend found to our dismay that no changes had been made to
the proposal. We wen; once again being told what was being done.
January 8, 2004 The proposal for Razzberry Crossing was presented to PBZ. The neighbors
who attended wee upset by the fad that the proposal now contained 4 IigM office lots. Despite
neighborhood opposition the proposal met the P8Z requirements for the Comprehensive Plan
and the plan was forwarded with a recommendation for approval. The changes made wen;
contrary to what the existing neighbors had requested.
This timeline leads up to the derision before you on February 3, 2004. As you make that derision I
would hope that you would take the fdlowing into consideration.
The developers will state that the neighbors requested the street connection at Star Lane. The
P8Z meeting notes reflect that one neighbor wanted that connection. That neighbor has a
vested finanaal interest in having the developer put in that road as ft wdl also serve the
development he has planned on his property. All of the other neighbors who testfied that ngM
were against the proposed connection to Locust Grove at Star Lane due to traffic congestion
at the intersection. An additional concern is the increased traffic load on Locust Grove. Media
artiries have quoted ACHD assaying Meridian plannir~ does not adequately account for ways
to pay for street improvements in north Meridian. We asked the developers to help with that
problem. Locust Grove Road is in poor condition. Per ACHD, the proposed Blooming
Meadows would have added 496 additional vehicle trips per day on Locust Grove. The new
proposal, Razzberry Crossing, with fight office spaces, would add 570. The developers
`compromise' went in the wrong direction, again.
The neighbors objected to the proposed density, both the R-15 townhouses and the R-8
residential lots. Thanks to the comments from the City Counril in July, the townhouses were
removed, leaving only our feeling that the R~ did not fd with the surrounding area. To the
north of the proposal is a 1 acre residential lot and a 2 acre residential lot. Havasu Creek
borders this developmentto the north and to the west and will eventualty border partially on the
South. Havasu Creek is zoned R-4. Also on the south are two 5 acre lots containing one
residence. The owner of these lots has expressed the intention to divide at least one of these
lots in the future. To the east is Heritage Subdivision, a development of mostly 1 acre
residential lots with a few'F: acre lots. The neighbors there have repeatedly expressed the
desire to see R-4 in this development as ft would be more cehesive with the surrounding area.
This request has been ignored, again.
In both of the neighborhood meetings for Raabeny Crossing, the neighbors objected to the 3
IigM office spaces. Both times we were 'threatened' with having a Circle K or a gas station
being installed in our neighborhood. In the P&Z meeting on January 8, 2003, the developer
bragged to the Commission members when he said °anytime you can put an office next to
some homes, the neighbors always seem to be pretty happy with that. Unlike maybe a Circle
K or a gas station°. When the proposal was presented to P8Z it came with 4 light office
spaces. The changes made were contrery to what the existing neighbors had requested,
again.
The neighbors have serious safety concerns regarding access for chldren to the
neighborhood schools. Raaberry Crossing is on the west side of Locust Grove, north of the
schools which are on the east side of Locust Grove. Locust Grove is a 50 mile per hour road
with no sidewalks, no shoulders, and no street lights. The children from this neighborhood will
have to walk that road in the rooming in the dark and in good weather and bad. Since this
project will bring more families and more children into the area, we asked that the developers
address this issue by working with ACHD to put in sidewalks from the development to the
sidewalk in front of Heritage Commons- which has a cross walk that is manned before and
after school. Instead the developers'cempromised' by addir~ mare than 100 feet of additional
sidewalk going north from the subdivision- that's right, away from the schools. While I think we
all appreciate the effort, the developers'cempromise' goes in the wrong direction, again.
Mother concern for this proposal, and more importarrtiy for this community, is the lads of
water. As stated by Planning and Zoning Staff member Mr. Freckleton in the January 75, 2004
PttZ meeting, the 'Meridian water supply is at capadty." Mr. FrecMeton additionalty said he
'could not comfortably recommend approvirrg any new subdivisions' until that situation has
been remedied. I agree with Mr. Freddeton. Unless the Cdy of Meridian is prepared to allow
United Water to cotwad to provide water to new subdivisions, which takes money for
improving the Meridian water system out of the City's coffers, no new subdivisions should be
approved.
I would quote Coundlman Nary in the July 1, 2003 meeting °You need to listen to these people. That's
why we have a neighborhood meeting process, so you'll listen to people, not for you to just tell them
what you want to do, twt you listen to them and what they'd like to have. Compromise and
communication is what we are talking about' Every so called 'compromise' this developer makes
compounds the problem arrd communication requires a sender and a receiver. We continue to send
messages but the receiver seems to either be malfundioning or fumed off. My feeling, is that the
developer is just waiting for us to get tired of trying to get our message through.
In dosing I would say that Planning and Zoning approves or denies based on the Comprehensive Plan.
If the proposal fits within the letter of the plan, they do not look doser to see whether it is the right plan
for the property and for the neighborhood. Therefore it falls on this Counal to look beyond the book
and below the surtace to see if the spirit of the plan is also being met. I do not believe that d is. This
Coundl has the authority to remand this proposal bads to Planning and Zoning unlit such time as the
developers team the meaning of the wont compromise and address the safety, density, traffic and
water supply issues.
1 would ask that you do so.
Thank You,
~~~ ..
,~
__
~
Terri E Ingram
c~-'1-~~. ~ L\
4320 N. Locust Grove
Meridian, ID t33842