HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Terri Ingram~',r ~1~~~~~
,.,
F~ 2 ~ ;~"4
January 25, 2004
~2,lYt. ~: S OFFICE
To: Mayor DeVlfeerd and the Meridian City Coundl; C~7~y ~`~ '?`ET3TRre~Sd
Re: Ranberry Crossing
I am writing cenceming an item on the City Coundl Meeting agenda for Tuesday, February 3, 2004.
Before you will be a request for approval of a subdivision named Raaberry Crossing located at 4379
N. Locust 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 across the street from the
proposed development.
This development has been badly planed and badly executed since day one. Your Coundl was wise
enough to have the developer withdraw their first appliption under the name Blooming Meadows. I
believe this application is almost as bad. The owners, Cart and Bonnie Rettennan, have hired a new
planning consultant in pursuit of approval underthe name Raabeny Crossing. A short synopsis of the
history ofthis projed beginning with the first P&Z meeting;
• June 2003- Planning and Zoning recommended denial of the applications on the basis of
several items. P8Z recommended that the developers obtain a street connection to Locust
Grove at Star Lane and that the developers hold a neighborhood meeting- something that had
been neglected in the planning process.
June 30, 200& The developer sponsored a neighborhood meeting. 25-30 people attended
that meeting. The developer Yold' us what they were going to do. The neighbors objected to
the proposed density and to the connection to Locust Grove at Star Lane. Further we had
serious concerns about pedestrian trafficto the elementary and high schools.
• July 1, 2003- Stating that °the PifZ Commission was swayed by the public opposition to the
Comprehensive Plan that happened to manifest itself on this projed..° The developer appealed
to the Cily Coundl to overturn the denial of the application. The developer presented the
original proposal to the Ctty Coundl with a few 'cosmetic' changes. You may recall that the
Coundl Auditorium was standing room only with neighbors attending in opposition to the
proposed projed. City Coundl reprimanded the developer for wasting Coundl time, P8Z time,
and the neighbors' time. They further stated that density was obviously an issue with the
neighbors and asked the developer to withdraw the application and start over This time
starting with a neighbofiood meeting in which they listened to the neighbors rather than just
infomring them of what was going to be done.
August 25, 2003- The developer sponsored a neighbofiood 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. Neighbors were
nd happy with the IigM office concept but were told by the planner that andher option was a
C'rrde K or a gas station. Neighbors asked to have a member of Heritage Sub be put on the
design and the CCR committees of Raabeny Crossing. (this has still not been done.) By the
end of the meeting, most neighbors were still not happy with the light office but were
encouraged with the fad that the planner was taking notes and appeared to be listening. The
neighbors asked that when our concerns wen: 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 were once again being told what was being done.
• January 8, 2004- The proposal for Razzbeny Crossing was presented to PBZ. The neighbors
who attended were upset by the fact that the proposal now corrtained 41igM 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 were
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 following into consideration.
The developers wi0 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 finanrial interest in having the developer put in that road as it will also serve the
development he has planned on his property. All of the other neighbors who testfied that nigh
were against the proposed connection to Locust Grove at Star Lane due to traffic congestion
at the intersection. An additional cencem is the increased traffic load on Locust Grove. Media
artictes have quoted ACHD assaying Meridian planrring does not adequately account for ways
to pay for street improvemerrts 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 lips per day on Locust Grove. The new
proposal, Razzbeny Crossing, with light 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 commerrts from the City Coundl in July, the townhouses were
removed, leaving only our feeling that the R-8 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 development to the north and to the west and will eveMualty border partially on the
South. Havasu Creek is zoned R-4. Aiso 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 ~ acre lots. The neighbors there have repeatedly expressed the
desire to see R-4 in this development as ft would be more cohesive with the surrounding area.
This request has been snored, again.
In both of the neighborhood meetings for Razzberry Crossing, the neghbors objected to the 3
light office spaces. Both times we were Yhreatened' with having a Circle K or a gas station
being installed in our neighborhood. In the P8Z 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 IigM office
spaces. The changes made were contrary to what the existing neighbors had requested,
again.
The neighbors have serious safety concerns regarding access for children to the
neighborhood sdmols. Razzherty 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 morning in the dark and in good weather and bad. Since this
project wip 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 from of Heritage Commons- which has a cross walk that is manned before and
after school. Instead the developers'cempromised' by adding more than 100 feet of additional
sidewalk going north from the subdivision-that's right, away from the schools. Whfe I think we
all appreriate the effort, the developers'compromise' goes in the wrong direction, again.
Mother concern for this proposal, and more importantly for this community, is the lads of
water. As stated by Planning and Zoning Staff member Mr. Freddeton in the January 15, 2004
P&Z meeting, the `Meridian water supply is at capadty.' Mr. Freddeton additlonally said he
"could not comfortably recommend approving any new subdivisions' until that situation has
been remedied. I agree with Mr. Freckteton. Unless the City of Meridian is prepared to allow
United Water to contrad to provide water to new subdivisions, which takes money for
improving the Meridian water system out of the Cily's coffers, no new subdivisions should be
approved.
I would quote Coundlman Nary in the Juty 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, but you listen to them and what they'd like to have. Compromise and
wmmunication is what we are talking about' Every so called 'compromise' this developer makes
compounds the problem and communication requires a sender and a receiver. We continue to send
messages but the receiver seems to efther be matiundioning 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.
tithe proposal fits within the letter of the plan, they do not look doser to see whether it is the right plan
for The property ar>d for the neighborhood. Therefore it falls on this Coundl to look beyond the book
and below the surface to see if the spirit of the plan is also being met. I do not believe that ti is. This
Coundl has the authority to remand this proposal bads to Planning and Zoning until such time as the
developers learn the meaning of the word compromise and address the safety, density, traffic and
water supply issues.
I would ask that you do so.
Thank You,
s~
~..
Terri E Ingram
r
~' ,
~~~~~~~
~`
4320 N. Locust Grove
Meridian, ID 83642