Loading...
Emaily by Steve Meharry and City's Responses to LetterMachelle Hill From: Bill Parsons Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:23 PM To: Machelle Hill Subject: FW: Canterberry Commons Development Machelle, Planning department's response to the Mayor's office and the applicant. Thanks, Bill Parsons, AICP Associate City Planner Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 PHONE: (208) 884-5533 FAX: (208) 888-6854 bparsons@meridiancity.org From: Peter Friedman Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 12:19 PM To: Peggy Gardner Cc: Bill Parsons; 'Shawn Brownlee' Subject: FW: Canterberry Commons Development Peggy, I called Steve to confirm his conversation with Scott and that in fact his questions were answered. He is satisfied that his question has been answered and is in fact in support of the project. Pete From: Scott Noriyuki [mailto:scott@northsidemgt.com] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 12:11 PM To: Peggy Gardner Cc: stevemeharry@hotmail.com; Bill Parsons; 'Shawn Brownlee'; Peter Friedman; Bruce Freckleton Subject: RE: Canterberry Commons Development Peggy - I Just got off the phone with Steve Meharry. I clarified our designs and the fact that we are not narrowing the corridor. He said his concerns have been met, he no longer has any issues with the project and will be at the Hearing Tuesday evening in support of our project. Thanks and please feel free to call or email anytime with questions. Scott Noriyuki (208) 230-1202 I`'~lF~THIdE It"+1'I~,1~,1~G E M E'tVT' From: Peggy Gardner [mailto:pgardner@meridiancity.org] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:48 AM To: Steve Meharry; Ithompson@landmarkdevgroup.com; Shawn Brownlee; Bruce Freckleton; Peter Friedman Cc: mayortammy; Bruce Chatterton Subject: RE: Canterberry Commons Development Dear Steve: Your email has been received by the Mayor's Office. Thank you for letting us know of your concerns. I am forwarding your email to our Community Development Department for follow-up. The will also have the proper contact at ACHD for more information on their plans. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. Peggy Gardner Administrative Assistant to Mayor Tammy de Weerd City of Meridian 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 489-0529 From: Steve Meharry [mailto:stevemeharry@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:30 AM To: Ithompson@landmarkdevgroup.com; shawn@trilogyidaho.com; Peggy Gardner Subject: Canterberry Commons Development Dear Tamera Thompson (agent), Owner of Trilogy Development, and Tammy DeWeerd, Meridian Mayor (To Whom It May Concern at info@meridiancity.org ,please see that this lands in Mayor DeWeerd's hands): I contacted the previous developer (might have been your company, it's been a while) prior to the previous hearing back in '97 or'98 regarding density, quality, etc. because I have a viable interest in the neighborhood. I have owned 2501 W. Snyder since that property was developed in '96/'79 (we built). Anyways, my experience was very positive and I trust our ability to resolve issues will go equally well. Because the other development stopped, I didn't pursue my concerns at that time. Here is my concern: It appears at present, that your development encroaches (or will encroach) on Pine more than our subdivision does (and subsequent subdivisions east of us). Will Pine narrow as it passes your subdivision, or will the properties provide the same setback from the center of Pine as Morning Glory I & II? I have three concerns related to this: 1). Asthetics. When properties crowd a road after previous subdivisions left more park like barriers, it cheapens a neighborhood (perceptually). Some could argue the same for higher density and have a valid point, but as long as the units have a quality look and feel, I'm not going to fight the density issue. We already have apartments on either side at the end of Pine (where it tee's into 10 Mile). Still, I have a vested interest in my property value (and yes, I need to talk with our subdivision president about bringing some of my neighbors into compliance with our bi-laws, but that is really my concern and not yours). 2. Safety. I saw that you have permission from ACHD and were not required to get a new servey (which makes sense, because your decreasing the density in your perposal, thank you very much!). But I am highly concerned about increased traffic pressure and exposure to pedestrians and cycle traffic if the road and sides crowd as they approach 10 Mile (especially since 10 Mile is set to become a major artery for Valley access to the areas serviced by 10 Mile). I feel quite strongly about this issue and would be willing to garner neighborhood support to legally hold all parties (city, state, ACDH, and your companies) responsible. I'm fairly certain I could garner a great deal of support regarding the safety issue. 3. Access. Even if the actual size of traveled road could be proven to be the same, when the sides of a road narrow (i.e., common areas), there is a psychological perception that access is getting more limited and traverse is perceptually more dangerous which elicits bottle neck driving habits (or, alternatively, very risk oriented driving because of frustration and impatience with more cautious and safety oriented drivers). Niether are desirable and neither make the property more safe for those moving through it. I need written assurance from you as developers, the City of Meridian, and ACDH/State of Idaho that the side barriers (lawns/trees/shrub spaces) sometimes known as common areas provide the same or greater distance from the center of Pine as is currently present in Morning Glory I & II. As increased neighborhood development is inevitable, especially since 10 Mile has become an arterial feed for Boise, Nampa, Caldwell, Kuna, (and Eagle/Star/Emmett/etc., as soon as the road goes through), traffic patterns are destined to increase in this arterial area as time passes. As a matter of fact, it would be short sighted and somewhat fiscally imoral not to preserve space for future traffic needs when it is totally unnecessary to burden future land owners with the risk of condemed properties for emminent domain when current planning could forstall or even prevent that future action at this juncture. It is my hope that we can work this out before the meeting Tuesday evening as I really would like to be at that meeting as a support for you rather than an antagonist. I appreciate your willingness to help work this out in advance and look forward to working with you on this toward a smooth and speedy resolution so that the development can transpire, removing the eye sore left by the arrested development. I need to say that I am most pleased with how you have conducted your engagement with our communities to date, and feel bad that I missed the March meeting due to being out of town during that time of year. We have a wonderful city, community, and I would like to preserve that feel for as long as possible. Thank you, and again, I look forward to working in a very positive way with you on this issue. Sincerely yours, Steve Meharry (208) 863-6744 P0. Box 578 Emmett, ID 83617-0578 (Yes, we are currently leasing the home out, but may very well return to it as retirement conciderations (home/health/travel access opportunities are more readily available at the Snyder properly.) Machelle Hill From: Bill Parsons Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:20 PM To: Machelle Hill Subject: FW: Canterberry Commons Development Machelle, Attached is written comments for the Canterbury Commons folder. Thanks, Bill Parsons, AICP Associate City Planner Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 PHONE: (208) 884-5533 FAX: (208) 888-6854 bparsons@meridiancity.org From: Bruce Freckleton Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:57 AM To: Bill Parsons Subject: FW: Canterberry Commons Development FYI E II~I~ii ~~-~ Bruce Freckleton Development Services Manager Community Development Department Think Green Please do not print this email unless necessary From: Peggy Gardner Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:48 AM To: Steve Meharry; Ithompson@landmarkdevgroup.com; Shawn@trilogyidaho.com; Bruce Freckleton; Peter Friedman Cc: mayortammy; Bruce Chatterton Subject: RE: Canterberry Commons Development Dear Steve: Your email has been received by the Mayor's Office. Thank you for letting us know of your concerns. I am forwarding your email to our Community Development Department for follow-up. The will also have the proper contact at ACHD for more information on their plans. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. Peggy Gardner Administrative Assistant to Mayor Tammy de Weerd City of Meridian 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 489-0529 From: Steve Meharry [mailto:stevemeharry@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:30 AM To: Thompson@landmarkdevgroup.com; Shawn@trilogyidaho.com; Peggy Gardner Subject: Canterberry Commons Development Dear Tamera Thompson (agent), Owner of Trilogy Development, and Tammy DeWeerd, Meridian Mayor (To Whom It May Concern at infoCc~meridiancity.org ,please see that this lands in Mayor DeWeerd's hands): I contacted the previous developer (might have been your company, it's been a while) prior to the previous hearing back in '97 or'98 regarding density, quality, etc. because I have a viable interest in the neighborhood. I have owned 2501 W. Snyder since that property was developed in '96/'79 (we built). Anyways, my experience was very positive and I trust our ability to resolve issues will go equally well. Because the other development stopped, I didn't pursue my concerns at that time. Here is my concern: It appears at present, that your development encroaches (or will encroach) on Pine more than our subdivision does (and subsequent subdivisions east of us). Will Pine narrow as it passes your subdivision, or will the properties provide the same setback from the center of Pine as Morning Glory I & II? I have three concerns related to this: 1). Asthetics. When properties crowd a road after previous subdivisions left more park like barriers, it cheapens a neighborhood (perceptually). Some could argue the same for higher density and have a valid point, but as long as the units have a quality look and feel, I'm not going to fight the density issue. We already have apartments on either side at the end of Pine (where it tee's into 10 Mile). Still, I have a vested interest in my property value (and yes, I need to talk with our subdivision president about bringing some of my neighbors into compliance with our bi-laws, but that is really my concern and not yours). 2. Safety. I saw that you have permission from ACHD and were not required to get a new servey (which makes sense, because your decreasing the density in your perposal, thank you very much!). But I am highly concerned about increased traffic pressure and exposure to pedestrians and cycle traffic if the road and sides crowd as they approach 10 Mile (especially since 10 Mile is set to become a major artery for Valley access to the areas serviced by 10 Mile). I feel quite strongly about this issue and would be willing to garner neighborhood support to legally hold all parties (city, state, ACDH, and your companies) responsible. I'm fairly certain I could garner a great deal of support regarding the safety issue. 3. Access. Even if the actual size of traveled road could be proven to be the same, when the sides of a road narrow (i.e., common areas), there is a psychological perception that access is getting more limited and traverse is perceptually more dangerous which elicits bottle neck driving habits (or, alternatively, very risk oriented driving because of frustration and impatience with more cautious and safety oriented drivers). Niether are desirable and neither make the property more safe for those moving through it. I need written assurance from you as developers, the City of Meridian, and ACDH/State of Idaho that the side barriers (lawns/trees/shrub spaces) sometimes known as common areas provide the same or greater distance from the center of Pine as is currently present in Morning Glory I & II. As increased neighborhood development is inevitable, especially since 10 Mile has become an arterial feed for Boise, Nampa, Caldwell, Kuna, (and Eagle/Star/Emmett/etc., as soon as the road goes through), traffic patterns are destined to increase in this arterial area as time passes. As a matter of fact, it would be short sighted and somewhat fiscally imoral not to preserve space for future traffic needs when it is totally unnecessary to burden future land owners with the risk of condemed properties for emminent domain when current planning could forstall or even prevent that future action at this juncture. It is my hope that we can work this out before the meeting Tuesday evening as I really would like to be at that meeting as a support for you rather than an antagonist. I appreciate your wi-lingness to help work this out in advance and look forward to working with you on this toward a smooth and speedy resolution so that the development can transpire, removing the eye sore left by the arrested development. I need to say that I am most pleased with how you have conducted your engagement with our communities to date, and feel bad that I missed the March meeting due to being out of town during that time of year. We have a wonderful city, community, and I would like to preserve that feel for as long as possible. Thank you, and again, I look forward to working in a very positive way with you on this issue. Sincerely yours, Steve Meharry (208) 863-6744 PO. Box 578 Emmett, ID 83617-0578 (Yes, we are currently leasing the home out, but may very well return to it as retirement considerations (home/health/travel access opportunities are more readily available at the Snyder property.)