2022-11-08 Mike and Malissa Bernard To the Honorable Mayor Simison and City of Meridian City Council,
There are two main issues with the recent Kingstown application: Density which impacts housing
product and setback placement and traffic.
The density in Phase 1 has far too many units for the acreage.
Neighborhood Parcels Exhibit, which the applicant removed square feet from sidewalk
easements from the total square footage, which are on our lots and recorded as such at the Ada
County Assessor and is therefore taxable square feet. AHCD has an easement.
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=276419&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCi
ty
1
it L L--L7L--L--i--1 Ali
F
Adjacent Alpine Pointe bordering Phase 1 has a net density 2.83 units per acre at the
NW border with the smallest lot starting at 12960 SF up to over% an acre.
Champion Park bordering Phase 1 is 3.77 per acre net density at the SW with the smallest
lot at 10800 SF. The entire southern border along Kingstown net density is 3.42 units per acre.
Phase 1 KINGSTOWN NET DENSITY IS 8.28 HOMES PER ACRE (2.174 acres just for home
lots divided by 18 homes).
Alpine Pointe residential has a gross density of approximately 2.45 units per acre (86.14 acres divided
by 211 homes).The preservation of trees angle to flank an oversized estate parcel that may be
bulldozed should never take priority over a good and balanced plan for existing and heavily invested
neighbors. The estate piece also skews the density math.
P and Z Commission Chairman Andrew Seal said this during Kingstown: "I like to call these in fill
developments to have your cake and eat it too developments, because the owner is trying to keep
their, you know, rather large estate lot and build whatever they can around it. I'm not a huge fan of
them, because this is what usually happens is nothing will fit. So--and I understand people want to
keep the trees and--everything, but, again, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, on the other side of
it, so --1 mean if-- there was a recommendation for denial on this based on that would the applicant
come back and, basically, redo this with a layout that is more like a standard subdivision where, you
know,you--do have larger lots and you are going to have to give up some trees, but not all of them,
but it would fit everything better."
There is one chance to get this right, and that would mean less lots overall. R-4 zoning makes sense in
all directions (8000 SF lot minimums, 5-foot side setback, IS-foot rear setback), as R-8 Delano lots at the
border are at 5500 to 6000 SF next to Kingstown with a conditioned one-story or one-story with front-
facing bonus room to protect privacy.
There should not be any two stories against one story home lots for privacy. Neighbors are invested in
their properties and their property rights as well. They deserve to have their privacy and peace of their
own home while having new neighbors. Yes, they knew something was going to come and be built, but
plausibility for development is to fit in and be like-sized lots and complementary from Champion Park to
Alpine Pointe, and not this weird anomaly of strangely denser lots in between.
do not think a remand can fix this to be fair to Alpine Pointe or Champion Park, as the R-8 blanket
zoning entitlement will likely bring a future density bump as the applicant is too steadfast to lopsided
densities with the "scraps" in Phase 1 (as said by Chairman Seal) and the "scraps" in Phase 1 have
remained constant in all four plans. R-4 overall is most appropriate,which fits next to Delano and is
transitional to the estate pad as well as Alpine Pointe and Champion Park.
What might a fairer balance look like? This shows an overlay of the size of the proposed green space
that is moved adjacent to the estate for an alternative location for the open space. Phase lines would be
moved to preserve outbuildings until Phase 2, as there may be some not in compliance. Some trees
would have to be removed but more mature trees could be enjoyed in the open space right at the onset
by the residents and the estate would have privacy. The pathways would not have any driveways on it.
&S nL'-het`NEJEII 1:0-L'"•;'•,;•:Is ar:ace nt.inci ea_ir-Pi i•:;•_',, '•:eiy:lee:] :—k'ral J_s.=.Jt'o-' s Ch, on P;`k
I,IT.3cy and Transit on•r:hile having artier I375 arc'w-J t,e Es:;:e.CnI:one_m- =_harec drivewa-y anc co interrult Cn
the Pathways system by any driveway. ONE STORY WITH F:GONT BON US')NLY at north,7 liomes
I
This is a much fairer and reasonable transition to Alpine Pointe and Champion Park and doesn't create a lopsided
layout with a premier estate side while phase 1 gets the"scraps"that are incompatible with those neighbors
bordering Phase 1. This isn't aboutwhat is possible but ratherwhat is fairand plausible.
We should renwve huge estate pieces in this case and other cases for density math with unique infill
presentations far fairness. Overlay of the other green space for comparison. Some middle green trees for
removal but retaining very mature trees within for all to enjoy,just not estate or larger lots.Moving the Phase 1
and 2 delrneation borderretains the outbuildingsfor propersetback until Phase 2.
There should, perhaps, be a newer policy regarding these huge estates and the math. You may as a
Council waive the gross densities for these wonky infills as county enclaves ask to annex, or you may
decide to remove the estate parcels from the density math and compare the densities to surrounding
neighborhood density math.
Example: rough plan below has 21 additional homes to the Estate. Remove the Estate from the math
is 8.20 acres—1.32 acres for the Estate= 6.88 acres divided by 21 homes is a gross density of 3.05
homes per acre.
Alpine Pointe is 2.45 units per acre gross density, and 2.84 units per acre net density at the NW
border.
Champion Park is 3.42 units net density at the entire southern border. The gross density is
approximately 3.47 units per acre overall from Parkstone Sub aka Champion Park public records of
104.77 acres divided by 364 lots, and includes estate parcel,commercial pads, attached single family
product, and a sizeable City Park under the Planned Unit Development label.
ALPINE POINTE and GROSS DENSITY 2.45 UNITS PER ACRE, no huge estates
KINGSTOWN and GROSS DENSITY 3.05 UNITS PER ACRE (huge estate parcel removed)
CHAMPION PARK and GROSS DENSITY 3.47 UNITS PER ACRE, density, commercial and civic
3.05 falls in between Alpine Pointe at 2.45 and Champion Park at 3.47,as is fitting.
It represents a fairer and more reasonable fit. 22 homes on 8.2 acres gets an average lot size of.3727
acres, or 2.69 units per acre gross density with the estate, and 6.88 acres (estate removed) divided by 21
homes is avg lot size of.3276 acres or 3.05 units per acre gross density, which is reasonable transition.
♦
J �♦
r R�
f
�' 36
r
An overall more equitable plan would set up Phase 2 and limit the density potentials after the
bulldozers come and flatten that estate parcel and kill the trees. 25 homes on 8.2 acres comes in at a
gross density of 3.05 units per acre, well within parameters for equitable density and transitional to all.
The trio of homes in white represent the sizes of the applicant's lots at 5250 SF, a terrible size.
This gives no-thern Neighbors only 7 yares adjacent,increasing Privacy. Very ceeo backyards scuth gives Champion Park
privacy and Trarsition while having larger lots around the Estate
ON E STORY WITH FRONT BONUS ONLY at north,7 homes
I
.F
r �
1
If the whole Phase 1 and Phase 2 Estate parcel sells for bulldozing and a subsequent modification to the
development agreement,asking for mare equitable lots NOW protects the area from a higher density
grab in Phase 2. If larger lots are set in Phase 1,Phase 2 will be less likelyto seek R-0 4000 5F lots
minimums and will be more harmonious to all three sides,as the Delano lots to the shared border are
one story or one story with bonus and vary from 5500 SF to over 60DO SF lot sizes. Some trees are saved,
and the neighbors are left overall more pleased with the transition.
TRAFFIC
The second concern is the lack of traffic mitigation and concern for existing neighborhoods when it is
warranted. Why would anyone say no to some traffic mitigation built into Kingstown, not only for
those residents but for others close to this proposal to reduce cut-through traffic.
One might say the traffic issues are down the road from this application, and that is not entirely true,
as the past applications that connect to this infill acreage that have come before the City had roads
with many flaws that are out of technical specifications and the roads were accepted as local streets
with lower traffic local street capacities despite their grooming for an obvious future use as mid-mile
collectors. Here we are 20-25 years later, and our peaceful residential areas are intermingling with
newer urban densities and heavy commercial projects in this area, and our local streets are being
unfairly expected to carry more and more of the traffic burdens intended for the highways, arterials, and
collector roads designed to carry it, and the connections via this neighborhood will change the traffic.
Just by saying ACHD is not ours does not absolve one from the inherent risk, moral and legal
responsibility of making sure plans fit current needs,future traffic, and are safe designs, regardless of
how those parcels fall into place for development. Don't build upon mistakes only to create new ones.
tap to drain a nigai rimar•-^a Double-ckck/tap to SNsh. x
THIS SHOM PORTIONS OF THE M10.MILE"COLLECTOR"ROAO5.portions of VYTF1.1Lr
the Carrrmercial Wlector at Centrepoint way,and"coral roads"being used as
Collectors(most to local street tech specs of 125 toot minimum spacing between •• �C �� ,�
road access)ONCE THIS PLAN is Connected,in Blue.Darker Blue is the MSM 1
IQ,. More examples found
accepted collector road.In Purple future collector.Alpine Pointe will get all tl`a[ ce + O
southern block residential to the I gha at Eagle as additional ingmss/egress a" %W �� -it�r since 25 Aug 2022 �the same applies to North to Mc MAI an.
A Z Y y{
Red Dashed will be the likely COMMERCIAL COLLECTION of Traffic m the 4
intended road is not complete*mh through traffic extending farther onto • ¢
existing collector road Leigh Field via Champion Park.Regardless of the status of )tit •_�
the commercial Collector Cernrepoint Way,traffic patterns+rcill intensify.
+e 6 •r I •
F s
m
+•bebl' r J
Ap S Cadr v--Si
FUTURE ROUNDABOUT • •'• wE�yVuw`n
Vthr&ugh
' LA
ll experience cut-through ingress/egressocust Grove city mile W via Leigh Field to Re light at Wainwright[Eagle as well as cut- s from the heavier Allage uses viaright/Records collector ingrem/egress tost.
The non conforming points along the'Collector" ORANGE SHOWS VARIANCES AND DEVIATION
E:Lnt Hsn
system including arluaf MSM Collectors and FROM CLIRR ENT ACHD POLICY AND SPECS
supposed Local Streets in use to perform as WHEN LOCAL STREETS are used as
Collectors are circled in Orange,not including all ryv olr.5+ —
residential driveways currently not in compliance. COLLECTORS and VARIANCES ON EXISTING
"s Red Circle is the new Roundabout at Leigh a... ACHD MSM COLLECTORS thus creating
Field/Locust Grove.
potential critical points,not including all —
driveways out of specs.
..................._ E ed*Ra x
Ad-connly
bunslfwww.achdidaha.osumumentslEr heeri!19 EbmkiVFuncbonalClassMar)20d0.rdr
Long Rangy Ilighway&SirCct Map I added nearby existing and future lights,with the future roundabout.
2040 3=unclionnl tilnrl C'laxsnficalion tiycicm
The oolIector was meant to be at Centre point/Udcypress,long-range.The rejig for the
CentrepointM+ainwdght collector was not amended untif 2016 yet the ROW was
purchased in 2005 with no signs or indicators of a road.Our internal IocaI streets will he
Functional Classification C. used to shave off lights as a bypass.There isthe newer extension of the Collector
— r -- Records(no of Ba I dcypress)to Femside to Wainwright NIS,East of Eagle Road.
...... aepoed vxrs+xr L —
. .. Prepared EmreratMy � �`
—• PrrKyY�rtprw �� '� -�
--•--- Prapteed Pn+nw Fnttd ��'
w eryw DJ Baldcypress
Prepreea ura A utr
W f `
cokcw
Future Interchanges 1
-T
i TYPE
mew v�rer�rr�e 1 � 1
VILtJ°IGE AND iNER
PART{AREA
r n d1l' . _ . mow
We cannot continue to stay in our lane with the roads and the ever-compounding impacts upon our
citizens. Perhaps it is time to hire a traffic engineer of our own with the extra City funds to field
neighborhood concerns,to review applications, and be a liaison between traffic committee, neighbors,
and ACHD and ITD to make suggestions for better traffic plans at the onset of applications and to make
suggestions for improving conditions and concerns in existing subdivisions. A few stop signs or minor
mitigation plans aren't going to impede the local traffic very much,yet it may dissuade the speeders
or the habitual cut-through travelers looking to shave off lights through peaceful neighborhoods not
designed for collector road functions and capacities with front-facing homes and close-set driveways.
This appears before every ACHD Agenda. Why are we not helping citizens feel safer near their own
homes? Why are we not calming traffic? Why are we waiting for accidents and metrics to act? We
have four schools on the block,with room for more...why are we waiting to make it safer for all? 20 mph
is a more appropriate residential speed especially with so many schools. We will have one of the higher
populations on our square mile in Meridian,twice the average population for a Meridian square mile.
ACHD
I It
Commission fleeting Agenda
Wednesday, November 9, 2022
Michael L. Brokaw Auditorium
NOTE; Pursuant to Idaho Code 40-1415(6),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 thefinal authority to impose any conditions related totraffic
caused by any new development applications. Pursuanttothe Idaho Supreme Courtdecision in
KMST LLC vs.Ada County, 138Idaho 557, 581-582,2003, only the land use agency (City or County)
has the final authority to approve or reject the proposed development,)including the final authority to
implementconditions 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 (City
andlorCounty)to make land use decisions. i.e. developmentdensity,zoning, area of impact and
comprehensive plan amendments.
These Comprehensive Plan policies apply to this application for your consideration.
2.02.02C Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development.
Infill projects in Downtown should develop at higher densities, irrespective of existing development.
3.01.01A Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans
in all land use decisions(e.g., traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks).
3.05.00 Ensure that all planning,zoning and land use decisions balance the interests of the community
by protecting private property rights for current citizens and future generations.
3.07.01A Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through
buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices.
3.07.02F Coordinate with transportation agencies to align future needed infrastructure with land use
plans and implement through the development review processes.
5.01.00 Sustain, enhance,promote, and protect elements that contribute to livability and a high quality
of life for all Meridian residents.
5.01.01 Encourage the safety, health, and well-being of the community.
5.01.01E Provide pathways, crosswalks, traffic signals and other improvements that encourage safe,
physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists.
5.01.02 Support beautiful and high-quality development that reinforces neighborhood character and
sustainability.
5.01.02E Support and protect the identity of existing residential neighborhoods.
6.01.02G Work with the Transportation Commission and transportation partners to implement needed
neighborhood traffic calming and address safety concerns.
As-is, I cannot see any reason to move Kingstown forward. I have tried to keep an open mind along
the way, but at the end of the day it is just not in the City's best interests to move this terrible plan to
integrate with our neighborhoods as it fails to comply with the Comprehensive Plan,transitional and
comparable densities, and the roads do not have any traffic mitigation as the plan will adversely affect
existing traffic patterns in very close proximity to several schools and high intensity uses such as high
density residential and heavily trafficked commercial and regional draws in the area.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Malissa Bernard,Alpine Pointe resident