Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Terri IngramJanuary 25, 2004 A2:lYC ~: S OFFICE To: Mayor DeWeerd and the Meddian City Councl; C'~" ~` ~~`£R-~~'~ Re: Raabefry 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 Raabeny Crossing located at 4379 N. Locust Grove, Meridian. I am requesting that you do not approve the proposal as wditen. My name is Terd Ingram. I five at 4320 N. Locust Grove, Meridian. Directly across the street from the proposed development. This development has been body planed and badly exearted since day one. Your Coundl was wise enough to have the developer withdraw their first application under the name Blooming Meadows. I believe this application is almost as bad. The owners, Cad and Bonnie Reiternan, have hired a new planning consultant in pursuit of approval underthe name Raaberry Crossing. A short synopsis of the history ofThis projed beginning with the first P8Z meeting; • June 2003- Planning and Zoning recommended denial of the applicafions on the basis of several items. P&Z 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, 2003- The developer sponsored a neighborhood meeting. 25-30 people attended that meeting. The developer Vold' 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 cencems about pedestrian traffic to the elementary and high schools. • July 1, 2003- Stating that °the P&Z Commission was swayed by the public opposition to the Comprehensive Plan that happened to man'rfest itself on this projed.° The developer appealed to the City Coundl to overturn the denial of the application. The developer presented the original proposal to the City Coundl with a few 'cosmetic' changes. You may recall that the Coundl Auditorium was standing room onty with neighbors attending in opposition to the proposed projed. City Coundl reprimanded the developer for wasting Council time, P&Z 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 neighborhood meeting in which they listened to the neighbors rather than just informing them of what was going to be done. August 25, 200& The developer sponsored a neighborhood meeting. ZO-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 not happy with the IigM office concept but were told by the planner that another option was a Circle K or a gas station. Neighbors asked to have a member of Heritage Sub be put on the design and the CCR committees of Raaberry Crossing. (This has still not been done.) By the end of the meeting, most neighbors wen: 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 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 were once again being told what was being done. January 8, 2004 The proposal for Razzbeny Crossing was presented to P&Z. The neighbors who attended were upset by the fad that the proposal now contained 4 IigM ofice lots. Despite neighborfwod opposition the proposal met the P&Z 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 will state that the neighbors requested the street cennedion at Star Lane. The P8Z meeting notes reflect that one neighbor walled that connection. That neighbor has a vested finandal interest in having the developer put in that road as it will also serve the development he has planned on his properly. All of the other neighbors who testfied that nigh were against the proposed wnnection to Locust Grove at Star Lane due to traffic congestion at the interser~ion. An additional cencem is the increased traffic load on Locust Grove. Media articles have quoted ACHD assaying Meridian planning 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 cendrtion. Per ACHD, the proposed Blooming Meadows would have added 498 additional vehicle trips per day on Locust Grove. The new proposal, Razzberty Crossing, with IigM 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 cemments 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 eventualty border partialry on the South. Havasu Creek is zoned R-4. Also on the south an: two 5 acre lots containing one residence. The owner of these lots has exp2ssed the intention to d'ndde 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 d would be more cohesive with the surrounding area. This request has been ignored, again. In both of the neighborhood meetings for Razzbeny 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 6e 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 contrary to what the existing neighbors had requested, again. The neighbors have serious safety cencems regarding access for children to the neighborhood schools. Razzberry Crossing is on the west side of Locust Grove, north of the schools which are on the east side of l-ocust 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 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 'compromised' by adding more than 100 feet of additional sidewalk going north from the subdivision-that's right, away from the schools. While I think we alt appn:date 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 Mc Frecldeton in the January 15, 2004 P8Z meeting, the 'Meridian water suppy is at capadty.' Mr. Freckleton additionally said he °could not comfortably recommend approving any new subdivisions' until that situation has been remedied. I agree with Mr. Freckleton. UNess the City of Meridian is prepared to allow United Water to wntrad 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 fasten 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 fake to have. Compromise and communication is what we are talking abouL° 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 malfundioning or turned 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 R is the right plan for the property and for the neighborhood. Therefore it falls on this Council to look beyond the book and below the surface to see ff the spirit of the plan is also being met. I do not beNeve that it is. This Coundl has the authority to remand this proposal bads to Planning and Zoning urrUl such lime as the developers team 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, ;~ C_~. . Terri E Ingram r ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~`~ 4320 N. Locust Grove Meridian, ID 83642