This petition is regarding the proposed Manchester Estates residential development ("Development"). We are neighborhood community residents writing to express our serious concerns about this Development. The proposed initial design of the Development fails to comply with the Idaho Falls Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive Plan") for residential development in the following listed ways - most specifically due to its use of “reverse frontage” lots that result in a row of back fences along Stonebrook Lane and Castlerock Lane.
Additionally, this design does not support the Comprehensive Plan due to the following: creates confusion for who is responsible for maintaining the sidewalks outside the proposed fence per the Idaho Falls walkway snow removal ordinance; increases safety hazards for neighborhood pedestrians; and possibly reduces property values by reducing walkability.

Noncompliance with the Idaho Falls Comprehensive Plan:
1. The Purpose section of the Comprehensive Plan states that residential areas should be: “Treed residential areas with a strong sense of identity, served by neighborhood parks and schools…” The vast majority of homes within the surrounding neighborhood have the front of homes facing the street (the only exceptions to our knowledge are three homes, out of several hundred homes, situated across from a public entity - Taylorview Middle School). In contrast, the proposed design of the Development has the backyards/ back fences of homes facing Stonebrook Lane and Castlerock Lane. This would significantly degrade the identity of our neighborhood by creating an inward-facing sub-neighborhood within it, fronted by blocks of possible mismatched fencing, which would be highly inconsistent with the appearance and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Conversely, the houses within all six surrounding housing subdivisions all have trees and landscaping. The developer’s representative stated at the May 7 public hearing that they are not required to provide landscaping for the Development, which would be in marked contrast to the consistent look and identity of the surrounding neighborhood subdivisions.

2. Implementation Strategy #1 states: “Develop a program to involve neighbors in the community development process early.” Prior to the public hearing on May 7, 2019, the developers of the Development, Rockwell Homes, did not solicit input from the neighboring community. Since the May 7 public hearing, even after being strongly encouraged to do so by several members of the Planning and Zoning Commission at the hearing, the developers have still not solicited input from the community.

3. Standard #1 states: “A park sufficient to meet neighborhood needs shall be provided to serve residential development…with tot lot, picnic areas, landscaping, including trees, and passive green space.” The proposed plan of the Development lacks these elements, and the representative from Rockwell Homes stated at the public hearing that they are not required to install landscaping in their developments. By contrast, a good example of a use of drainage space can be found in the Waterford development, which includes all those elements. (See photo)

4. Standard #4 states, “Residential lots adjacent to arterial streets shall have reverse frontage…” and Standard #3 states, “Arterial streets should be located along the perimeter of residential neighborhoods…” Neither Stonebrook Lane nor Castlerock Lane are arterial streets; instead they are collector streets in the center of our neighborhood. The proposed Development places reverse frontage lots in the center of the neighborhood, which does not meet the intent of Standard #4.

5. Standard #11 states: “On collectors, sidewalks and pedestrian ways should be…designed to convey pedestrians to schools and neighborhood services.” The enclosed design of the Development, with reverse-frontage lots along Stonebrook Lane and Castlerock Lane, discourages pedestrian traffic by increasing length of travel. For example, the location of the house at the corner of Castlerock and Stonebrook (Block 2, Lot 6), adds approximately 1,000 feet to the walk to Sunnyside School by requiring residents to walk south to Plantation and then double back on Stonebrook. The Comprehensive Plan explicitly points out that short walking distances are particularly important in Idaho Falls due to our long and snowy winters (Comprehensive Plan, p. 34).

6. Standard #13 states: “Bikeways should tie residential neighborhoods to schools…” As with the pedestrian walkways, the reverse fronted, fence-enclosed design of the Development discourages biking by increasing distances.

Confusion about IF sidewalk maintenance and snow removal ordinance:
1. Idaho Falls City Code Section 8-10-1 requires that residents clear snow, ice and other obstructions on sidewalks abutting their property. With the reverse frontage design of the proposed Development, it’s unclear who would be responsible for clearing sidewalks along the outside of the fence. It is unrealistic to expect that homeowners within the Development will consistently shovel snow on the other side of a 6-foot fence. If it is not the homeowners’ responsibility, then it remains unclear whose responsibility it will be. This confusion also applies to sidewalk maintenance responsibilities. Further, there is no clarity on who will be responsible for the maintenance of the strip surrounding the fence, which implies that trees in that area will not be maintained (possibly resulting in hazardous low branches) or replaced (in the event of a tree dying).

Safety hazards:
1. At the May 7 public hearing, many residents expressed concern for the impact of the Development’s design on traffic speeds. Their concerns are well-grounded: the likelihood of a pedestrian injury or fatality in traffic increases from 10% at 30 mph to 30% at 40 mph and speed has been a factor in about one-third of traffic accident deaths in the past 20 years . A recent article summarizing research by traffic psychologists at several different universities supports the contention that the presence of houses next to roads slows down driving speeds, regardless of the posted speed limit, by providing visual cues to drivers to ease up. The proposed design of the Development, with rows of fencing along Stonebrook and Castlerock Lane, will not provide such visual cues to drivers to slow down, and will therefore contribute to increased traffic speeds and safety hazards.

Effects on property values:
1. Walkability – defined as the ability to walk to schools, parks, shopping and other amenities – is an increasingly valued feature, with 56% of millennials reporting that walkability is very important to them (American Planning Association). Moreover, a study on walkability by Redfin, the real estate website, found that a one point increase in Walk Score correlates to an average $3,000 increase in property value. The Walk Score is based heavily on distance, with maximum score awarded for distances below 1,320 feet. The proposed Development unnecessarily increases walking distances up to 1,000 feet due to its reverse frontage design and thus would likely negatively impact property values by reducing Walk Scores in and around the Development. This could in turn weigh down surrounding home values since property values are linked to nearby “comps” (nearby similar home values).

The new owner has done a fantastic job of turning the venue around in the past year, however a few residents are asking for this lovely pub to be closed which will mean a loss of jobs and a facility which is enjoyed by many in the local community. The loss of this pub to the majority of locals would be devastating, the entertainment has been fantastic in bringing in both regulars and further afield patrons.

The owner has complied with everything asked of them and is hoping that this will be enough.

Too many pubs are closing, therefore we need to try and preserve this local pub.
We need to show Thanet District Council the strength of feeling towards this application and we urge you to sign our petition.

From our understanding, when the building first opened, the owner made a "no rooftop access" rule after some kids threw small items over the balcony. That rule was put in place over 6 years ago. Notably, this rule is not included in any of our leases.

We would like the owner to eliminate this rule for the following reasons:

(1) Antiquated, Baseless Rule:
 The "no rooftop access" rule was put in place over 6 years ago. Therefore, it is beyond time to reevaluate the purpose behind this hardline rule. In the past two years, there have been no incidents or accidents reported with the limited access we were given. Therefore, it is established that our residents can occupy the space responsibly.

(2) Building Amenities:
 We pay thousands of dollars for rent, which should include access to ALL amenities, such as the rooftop, a (working) business center, clubhouse, and the fitness center. The diversity of our residents -- mixed income, different ages, tax credits, Section 8 vouchers holders, different racial/ethnicity, etc. -- is no reason to keep residents from accessing this amenity for our enjoyment. The rule itself seems based in unfounded biases and a belief that the residents in this building, for whatever reason, are not responsible enough to have rooftop access.

(3) Children:
 We understand the concern for the safety of children. Therefore, we propose a "no children on the rooftop" rule. This rule would prohibit all children under 18 from accessing or being on the rooftop at anytime. This way, adult residents can still have access. We are also open discussing any other rules to ensure the safety of our residents.

(4) Security & Monitoring:
 We believe that if we start with limited rooftop access hours, we can show property management and the owner that we can be responsible with the rooftop access. Since the building now employs security, we can ask the security guards to check-in on the area during their shifts. During business hours, a property employee can check-in on the area periodically throughout the day.

That said, it is very upsetting that our neighbors at the Fahrenheit, the Swift, Park View, and others, allow their residents to use their rooftop space. Of course, children live in these buildings too, but instead of eliminating access all together, these buildings have simply established appropriate rules and safeguards. Yet, the rooftop space at 3 Tree Flats is simply being wasted. The building architects created rooftop space for our enjoyment - let us enjoy!

MALAY VERSION

Kami adalah Anak Negeri Sabah, hidup di Kampung Kolam Damai lebih daripada 40 tahun, Anak-anak penduduk kampung membesar di sini, dan sebahagian daripada mereka sudah mempunyai cucu. kita hidup dalam harmoni dan bahagia tanpa campur tangan dari pihak berkuasa. Jumlah rumah Anak Negeri Sabah di kawasan ini adalah dalam anggaran 130 dan merangkumi 500 penduduk. Penduduk kampung adalah dari pelbagai etnik iaitu KadazanDusun, Rungus, Murut, Brunei, dan Cina. Pada 16 November tahun lepas, Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (DBKK) telah membuat pemeriksaan ke kampung ini dengan mengambil maklumat daripada keluarga setiap rumah. Kami fikir mereka cuba untuk membantu kami, tetapi malangnya pada 2 mei 2017 kami menerima berita yang tidak baik dari DBKK bahawa kita perlu meninggalkan kawasan tersebut dalam tempoh 30 hari dari tarikh notis dikeluarkan. Semua penduduk kampung tidak mampu bercakap apa-apa dan bimbang. Mengapa kita sebagai Anak Negeri Sabah telah dipaksa untuk meninggalkan kawasan ini yang kami diami lebih daripada 40 tahun tanpa pampasan atau tempat yang baru untuk dihuni, manakala pendatang tanpa izin pula mendapat pampasan dan tempat tinggal yang baru. Dalam keadaan ini, kami menuntut pembatalan perobohan rumah-rumah di Kampung Kolam Damai. Kebanyakan penduduk juga datang dari berpendapatan sederhana rendah. jika kita melihat keadaan ekonomi sekarang kita tidak mampu untuk mencari rumah. di mana kita perlu untuk hidup? semua yang kita ada adalah Kampung Kolam Damai, anak-anak pergi ke sekolah setiap hari dari Kampung Kolam Damai, jika kita meninggalkan kawasan ini bagaimana anak-anak ini pergi ke sekolah? adakah mereka perlu berhenti untuk pergi ke sekolah selama seminggu untuk mencari rumah baru atau tempat tinggal ... ia adalah tidak masuk akal untuk melakukan mereka seperti itu. Kami meraikan Kaamatan setiap tahun di kampung ini, tetapi malangnya tahun ini mungkin tiada perayaan Kaamatan bagi kami tetapi kami akan mempertahankan Kampung Kolam Damai sebagai kampung kami dan rumah kami kerana kami tahu kami bukan pendatang tanpa izin tetapi kami ANAK NEGERI SABAH yang mempunyai kad pengenalan dan surat beranak yang sah.