HomeMy WebLinkAboutNIDAYS Addition RZRZ 04-001
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING April 1, 2004
APPLICANT Merlyn and Brandon Schmeckpeper ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for a Rezone of .353 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for NIDAYS
Addition - 230 West Pine Avenue
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY fNGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See attached staff Comments
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See aflidavR of Posflna. see revised
Contacted:
Emailad:
see statements hom
fpp~~~~~Date: ~ Phone: ~i~f[~~"/~~~
Sta Initi Is: ~~
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Ciy of Meridian.
'~-~
~~
MAYOR
Tammy da Waerd
CITY COUNCII. MEMBERS
KeitL Bird
William L.M. Nary
sim~m warue
Charles M. Ramdrea
~~,,~~ ,,//'''' GITY OF
~.~V(BY1G~lt'Fj?
~` IDAHO
crrY BALI.
(208) 886-0433 -Fax 887-0813
PUBLIC WGRKB
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 -Fax 898-9551
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466A272 - FAX 466-4405
MEMORANDUM: April 1, 2004
To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Comm(i~s~sion ~~ ~~~~~
From: Wendy Kirkpatrick, AICP, Associate City Planner W~~ MAR 2 9
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech 2004
City Of Meridian
Re: Merlyn Schmeckpeper Rezone (230 W. Pine Street) City Clerk Office
• Request for a Rezone of 0.35Acres of Land Located at 230 W. Pine Avenue
from R-4 (Low Density Residential District) to 0.T (Old Town), by Merlyn
Schmeckpeper (Fide No. RZ-04-001).
We have reviewed the above referenced submittals and offer the following comments, as
conditions of approval. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICATION SU1VIII~IARY
The owner of the subject property, Merlyn Schmeckpeper, has requested the approval of a re-
zone of his property, located at 230 W. Pine Avenue, from R-4 to O-T in order to accommodate
a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accounting and dispatch office to operate out
of an existing single family residence. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP-04-005) for the
accoulting and dispatch office is a separate application which has been applied for by Seal Co.
The property is depicted as "Old Town" on the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map,
and the development of land in the Old Town Zoning District requires a Conditional Use Permit
for the proposed use.
The existing buildings on site consist of a 1,450 square-foot single family dwelling and a
detached two car garage (approximately 660 square feet.)
A home occupation for a bookkeeping business (AUP-03-021) was approved on the subject
property by Meridian's Planning and Zoning Commission on March 4, 2004.
RZ-04-001 Schmecdspeper
LOCATION
The subject property, 230 W. Pine Avenue, is located on the north side of Pine Avenue,
bordered on the west side by W. 3'a Street.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Single family residential and Meridian Elementary, zoned R-4.
South: Single family residential, zoned R-8. Pine Avenue is located directly south of the
subject property.
East: Single and multi-family residential, zoned R-4.
West: Single family residential, zoned R-4. Third Street is located directly west ofthe subject
property.
CURRENT OWNERS OF RECORD
Merlyn Schmeckpeper is the currern owner of the subject property and he has submitted an
affidavit of legal interest to allow the applications to be submitted for the subject property.
STANDARDS FOR ZONING AMENDMENT
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposal zoning amendment in terms ofthe following standards and shall find adequate
evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment (11-15-11):
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive
plan amendment;
Staff finds that the requested Old Town (O-T) zoning designation is in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map which delineates the subject property as
"Old-Town." The text of the Comprehensive Plan (page 99) supports the conversion of
existing single family homes in the O-T zone for uses other than residential uses.
B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be re-zoned in the future;
The applicant has not indicated that they intend to re-zone the property in the future.
C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning;
Staff finds that the applicam has submitted detailed development plans for a Conditional
Use Permit for the property. Staff further finds that the proposed accounting and
dispatch office use will only be allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in
the proposed O-T zone.
D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the
area should be rezoned;
Staff finds that the recern adoption of the City's new Comprehensive Pan has provided
the applicant with the ability to request the 0-T zone for the subject property.
RZ-04-0Ol S~*ner__t~Pr
Additionally, the classification of Pine Street as a collector and the other commercial
uses in the vicinity of the subject property dictate that the area should be rezoned.
Commercial uses in the vicinity of the subject property include a commercial office and
a beauty salon on West 1~ Street and a medical office at the intersection of Pine Avenue
and West 4s' Street.
E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the eaisting or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of
the same area;
Staff fmds that proposed use is appropriate for the area with the inclusion of an adequate
buffer between the proposed commercial use and existing residential uses. There is an
ongoing property line dispute between the property owner and the neighbor directly to
the north of the subject property. In recognition of this disputed property line, staff
recommends that the applicant be required as a condition of approval to establish a 10'
buffer including privacy fencing and landscaping between the subject property and the
neighboring residence. The existing building(s) will remain on site and not be altered
dramatically for the proposed aceounting and dispatch office
F. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses;
Staff finds that the requested rezone has the poternial to be disturbing to existing uses
based on the complaints that have already been received from neighboring property
owners. A buffer between the proposed use and the neighboring residernial property to
the north will be critical to reducing disturbances to adjoining land uses. The
Commission and Council should carefully consider all public testimony, oral and
written, before malting this finding.
G. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed
conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such service;
Staff fmds that the proposed uses will be adequately served by all essential public
services and facilities. The existing residence on the subject property is currently served
by all essential public facilities and services. Drainage will need to be retained on site.
H. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities
and services and will not be detriroental to the economic welfare of the community;
Staff finds that the requested uses will not create excessive additional requirements at
public costs for public facilities and services. Additionally, staff finds that the proposed
rezone would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. As an infill
development the proposed development has a low public cost vs. benefit to the
community. See comment G above.
L Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment, and conditions
that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of
xz-oa-ooi Sctunecxpeper
eacessive production of traffic, anise, smoke, fames, glare or odors;
Staff finds that the proposed O-T zoning designation of the property does not inheremly
allow uses that will generate activities, processes, materials, equipment, and conditions
that are detrimental to the general welfare of the community.
J. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to
create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
Staff finds that the proposed O-T zoning will not interfere with general traffic patterns
on any public streets. The subject property is located on a collector street and the
property will be accessed from both an existing alley on the east side of the property and
West 3`d Street, a local road.
K Will not result in the destruction, loas or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance.
Staff finds that the subject property does not have any existing natural or scenic features
of major importance; the subject property has already been developed.
L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City;
Staff finds that the proposed rezone would be in the best interest of the City by allowing
a property owner to make improvements to the property for re-development that would
otherwise not be allowed without the rezone.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Remove any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems whhin this project from their
domestic service per City Ordinance. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes
such as landscape irrigation.
2. All signage in the proposed project shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in
Section 11-14 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance.
Provide off-street parking in accordance with the City of Meridian Ordinance 11-13 for
use of property.
4. A11 construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
5. Any assessments or re-assessments for sewer and water service for any new uses will be
determined during the Certificate of Occupancy process.
6. Development of the property shall be in conformance with the Meridian City Code.
7. A Development Agreement shall be required. If the subject property is used for a
commercial use, a ten foot buffer shall be established between the subject property and
RZ-04-0Ol Schmeckpeper
the residence located directly north of the subject property. A cedaz fence shall be
placed 10 ft. from the south side of the existing home located dvectly north of the
subject property (parcel # 86066000210) and a cement curb shall be placed on the north
property line of the subject property. The area between the fence and the curb shall be
landscaped and maintained by the owner of the subject property.
AGENCY COMMENTS
There are no agency comments regarding this application.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of RZ-04-001 with the above-mentioned conditions of approval.
RZ-04-0O1 Schmeckpeper
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shaun Wardle
William L. M. Nary
Charles M. Rountree
Keith Bird
~..r
;~
+e
' .~, ::n ~n ,..
~,Q ,~' CITY' OF 1RifY~l~,
{~ IDAHO
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466-9272 • FAX 466-4405
PARKS & RECREATION
(208) 888-3579 • Fax 898-SSOf
PUBLIC WORKS
(208) 898-5500 • Fax 887-1297
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 • Pax 887-L297
PLANNING & ZONING
(208)884-5533 • Fax 888-6854
TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: March 25, 2004
Transmittal Date: February 10, 2004 Hearing Date: April 1, 2004
File No.: RZ 04-001
Request: Rezone of .353 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for NIDAYS Addition
By: Merlyn and Brandon Schmeckpeper
Location of Property or Project: 230 West Pine Avenue
David Zaremba, P/Z (NO VAR, VAC, FP)
David Moe, P/Z (NO VAR, VAC, FP)
Leslie Mathes, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Michael Rohm, P!Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Keith Borup, P2 (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Bill Nary, C/C
Charlie Rountree, C/C
Keith Bird, C/C
Sha ardle, C!C
ater Department
Sewer Department
Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Building Department
Fire Department
Police Department
Ada County Highway District
Ada County Development Services
Central District Health
Nampa Meridian brig. District
Settlers Irrigation District
Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP Dory)
U.S. West (FP/PP oMy)
Intermountain Gas (FPiPPoMy)
Bureau of Reclamation (FPiPP Dory)
Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office (FP/PPOMy)
Ada County (Annexation only)
Ada County Land Records (FP/PP Dory)
Meridian Development Corporation
Historical Preservation [:nmmiscion
Concise Remarks:
t~~rt~'~°~~~a
cam c~~ ~ERiDa~~r
WAS~'EWA~ER DEPT.
RECEIVED
FEB 1 ? 200
33 EAST IDAHO AVEN[IE • MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 City Of NTeridian
(Gj~) l~~rkd83f.~'ice
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813
CENTRAL CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
.• DISTRICT Return to:
iRHEALTH Environmental Health Division RECE~I? ^ Boise
DEPARTMENT
^ Eagle
Rezone #
4 ~( -oo I FEB 1 ~ 2004
Conditional Use # City ofMeriaian
Preliminary /Final /Short Plat
^ Garden City
Meridian
^ Kuna
^ ACZ
^ Star
~i._ We have No Objections to this Proposal.
^ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
^ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
^ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
^ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
^ high seasonal ground water ^ waste flow characteristics
^ or bedrock from original grade ^ other
^ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
^ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
^ 8. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water well
^ interim sewage ^ central water
^ individual sewage ^ individual water
^ 9. The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality:
^ central sewage ^ community sewage system ^ community water
^ sewage dry lines ^ central water
^ 10. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
^ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
^ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
^ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
^ food establishment ^ swimming pools or spas ^ child care center
^ beverage establishment ^ grocery store
^ 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendatations
^ 15.
Dater/~/~
Reviewed By:
Review Sheet
coHO 9roo iko
RECE~~E
FEB 2 5 200
City of Meridian
City Clerk. Offir.e
~~r~ia ~c ~u ~n~ugatio~ ~rct>t~iict
1503 FIRSTSTREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
19 February, 2004
William G. Berg Jr.
City Clerk
„~_ -
33 East Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
RE: RZ 04-001, NIDAYS Addition
Dear Will:
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced
application for Rezone of .353 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for NIDAYS Addition.
Thank you,
Bill Henson
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
C: Water Superintendent
File -Office/Shop
APPRO%IMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
8015E PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
TO: Wendy Kirkpatrick, Planner ~ ~ r
~ ~ ~ #
Meridian Phtoning & Zoning Department g
fl'
FROM:
Joe Venneman, Code Enforcement Oilicer `~~~^~
Meridian Planning & Zoning Department ~~;~ ~vi~, ~t_ic~;:
;p.,..i~ ~ 3flii~:
DATE: March 29, 2004
SUBJ: Surveillance results on Merlin Smeckpepper Case
Below are my notes for your use at the upcoming April 1~` CUP heazing in connection
with the Pine Street property. I am providing this information in this format due to the additional
time it would take to obtain approval for the release of my full Meridian police report on this
investigation. Some names have been redacted from this report due to confidentiality issues. If
you need any further information please let me know.
On March 19,2004, I conducted surveillance at the property on Pine Street beginning at
6:35 a.m., and at 6:46 a.m. and observed three trucks and one car arrive at this address within a
five minute period. Two of these trucks had "Seal Co" logos on the sides of the doors. A fifth
vehicle, a blue sedan, was already parked on the north side prior to my arrival. Five males got
out of their respective vehicles and congregated at the garage located east of the house. One of
the males opened the garage and at various times the men walked in and out of the garage. All of
the males were wearing work clothes and two of them had shirts with a logo which read "Seal
Co." Several small items which could not be identified were put into the bed of one of the
trucks, and at 7: T S a.m. two men began leaving the premises in their respective vehicles. One
man remained behind and was walkin his dog in the yard, so I approached him and identified
myself. He said his name was and I asked him if he was aware that no business could be
operated out of the unattached garage. He said, "yes, I know," but then added that no business is
being run out of there any longer and that they (he and the other men) were "removing materials
from the gazage and should be done doing so by Friday, March 26, 2004.
On March 22, 2004, I initiated surveillance of this property again at 6:35 a.m. At 6:47 a.m.,
two trucks arrived and pazked at the east side of the unattached garage. Within three minutes a
third truck and a white sedan arrived. Five men exited their respective vehicles and one of them
opened the garage door. They went in and out the garage numerous times, and I saw two items
being put into the back of one truck. Beginning at 7:10 a.m., all but one of the men left the
premises in their vehicles. (It was noted that during my observations of the mens' activities this
date, only one item was removed from the garage and placed imo one of the trucks.) All four
men then congregated at the garage door which was opened. They repeatedly went inside the
garage, and atone point one of the men put an item which I could not see into the bed of his
truck. The male with the pony tail removed a long poled scaler from the garage and took it to his
car. At 7:11 a.m.one of the white trucks left the premises traveling east on Pine. Nothing had
been loaded into this truck. At 7:14 a.m. a second male left in a truck, the garage door was
closed and the remaining two men went into the house, using the door on the east side of the
residence. The second man was a baldin male weazing a white shirt with the "Seal Co" logo on
the front. The first man was Mr.
On March 22, 2004, I initiated surveillance of this property again at 6:35 a.m. At 6:47
a. m., two trucks arrived and parked at the east side of the unattached garage. Within three
minutes a third truck and a white sedan amved. Five men exited their respective vehicles and
one of them opened the garage door. They went in and out the garage numerous times, and I
saw two items
At 7:27 a.m, both men came out of the house, got into their respective vehicles and left and
surveillance was ended at 7:35 a.m. .
On 3/26/04 I received a voice mail from a man idernifying himself as ~. He said
that
He had met that day with someone from Planning & Zoning, and had agreed to instruct all the
employees at the 230 W. Pine residence to no longer report there, and that they were only to
show up to drop off time cards in connection with the business being run from the house. He
said he would be the only person showing up at that residence from now on, and just wanted
me to know that he would be in compliance.
On 3/29/04 I initiated surveillance again at the 230 W. Pine address and found only one person
there. This person stood at the east door entrance to the house for a few minutes and then went
back inside the home. Fram my vantage point I could not tell if this was a male or female, but
no truck activity was seen u to the time surveillance was ended,' at 7:30 a.m.
Date: 03121!04
To: P& Z Commissioners & City Council Members
From: Brandon Schmeckpeper
~~~,~`'.~~JI~T~~3
i ty Clf Ii~leriiLirtr~.
RE: Application of Medyn and Brandon Schmeckpeper for a Rezone of .353 acres from R-4 to 0-T zones for
NIDAYS Add'Rion located at 230 West Pine Avenue.
Thank yeu for this opportunity to provide a few facts that support the approval of this zoning change application.
SECTION 1
The house at 230 W. Pine was built in the year 1900. It was purchase in 1988 by my father and myself. The
house was in a poor state of repair and the grounds were likewise. With a substantial investment of time and
effort, we gave an old founding member of this community a second chance. We take pride in that.
The area where the house is located has also seen great changes over the years. It has become an area of
mixed uses. These uses include single-family residences, multi-family apartments, commercial buildings, a beauty
salon, administrative offices and churches. The traffic characteristics of Pine St. have also evolved. As you may
know, Pine St. is now a collector street.
THE BAD NEWS: Because of these facts, it has become increasingly difficult to rent as a residence. We,
therefore, have found ourselves stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard spot. The feasibility of this property
as asingle-family residence has past. The Ada County Tax assessor appears to be of the same opinion as the
property tax assessment has soared 22% in past three years and is currently $104,600.00. Applying the
investment rule of 1 % of value per month, rent for this house would have to be approximately $1046.00 per
month. I don't think so!
THE GOOD NEWS: This application complies completely with the Comprehensive Plan as evidenced by the
following excerpts from the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. Underlined phrases are for emphasis only and are not
underlined in the original text.
1) The Future Land Use Map" designates this particular site as "Old own' (See attachment)
2) Old Town defined: `Old Town This includes the historic downtown and the true community center. Uses
would include offices, retail and lodging, theatres, restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents
and visitors..........The boundary of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat
bOUndarleS. "(Chapter VII Page 99)
3) Zoning Ordinance and Mao The policies of the comprehensive plan establish a framework for the zoning
and development ordinances and zoning maa. Amendments to the zoning ordinance and man are
necessary to truly implement this plan:"(Chapter VIII Page 111)
4) "The Planning and Zoning Commission reviews all new development proposals to insure compatibility
with the zoning and development ordinances and the comprehensive plan." (Chapter VIII Page 111)
5) °Many action items were identified in the planning process related to design and development standards.
These action items maybe implemented by revising the zoning ordinance and map. " (Chapter VIII Page 112)
6) °Goa! l: The City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan and related ordinances will be used by citizens and city
leaders to shape the future of the City of Meridian and surrounding Area of Impact.
Actions:
1. Update the zoning oniinance and man to be in conformance with the adopted comprehensive plan and
map.,. (Chapter VIII Page 112)
7) ^Goal ll: Diversity economic base of City -make Meridian more than a "bedroom" community.
Objective D: Promote development of Old Town and encourage ill development.
Action:
1. Offer incentives to businesses/deve/opers to invest in Old Town.
4. Fomr and support acommittee/work group to investigate opportunities for Old Town investment and
economic development.
10. Form a Business Improvement Distract in the Old Town area."
(Chapter IV Page 28)
8) "Goal ll: Ensure that downtown is the vita! center of the community.
Objective A: Support redevelopment of Old Town.
Actions:
12. Devebp special plans for fhe redevelopment and revitalization of Old Town that will enhance the area
and prevent future deterioration."
(Chapter V Page 40)
9) °Goal IV: Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land.
Objective B: Build services to areas of opportunity and promote future development of commercial.
industrial, retaiUservice and residentfa! to best protect objectives and integrity of Meridian.
Actions:
i. Provide incentives (tax. urban renewal. etc.) for Old Town.
2. Provide incentives to attract low-impact (commercial. industrial. efC.) business."
(Chapter VII Peqe 105)
10) "C. Prioritized List of Action ltems/Responsible Entities
!n orter to ensure implementation of the action items identified in this plan, those items have been
prioritized by citizen committees and assigned to the responsibility of appropriate government or public
agencies...Prtoritization of the action items for implementation should be based on the immediacy of
community need reganiing the expected outcome of such item...Those identified as "immediate' t0 to 1
..." (Chapter VIII Page 113)
Table wll-1. Action bemsfResoonsible Entities !Immediate. Irrtermediate. Lonrr Team and Ontrointtl
PRIORITY CHAPTER ACTION ITEM RESPONSIBLE PARTY PAGE
opt the FuWre Land Use Map within this Plen thffi
establishes alas where commercial and industrial
Immediffie N interwst and acti+nties are to dominate. C Council III-115
Develop incentives thffi encourage util'valion of
unimproved or underdeveloped land wthin the Meridian
City limits in order to ma>amize public investments, eurtffiI
urban sprats, and protect existing agdculturel lands from
Immediate N unnecess infd amen[. C Council VIII-115
d the zoning ordinance and map to implement the Planning Staff; PBZ; City
Immediate II provisions of this Ian. Council II-118
Form a Business Improvement District in the Old Town
Intermediffie IV arm. MDC 11-119
Planning StafF; P&Z; City
Develop incentives (tax, urban renewal, e1cJ for Old Councl; Chamber of
Intemx;tliate I Tam. Commerce; MDC III-122
Planning Staff; P8Z; City
Develop incentives to altrect low-impact (commercial, Council; Chamber of
Intem~ediate I industrial, etc.) business. Commerce; MDC III-122
The 2002 Comprehensive Plan is Gear in its directives for the formulation of a new and improved City core and
historic Old Town area. We applaud our city officials and citizens who, through dedication and hard work, have
produced a sound framework to use as reference in determining future decisions. This is an important tool to use
to insure that consistent decisions are made. Investment in Meridian's core has lagged substantially behind other
areas of City growth. Investment dollars are shy of areas where the future is uncertain. The adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan was an important step in beginning to remove some of that uncertainty surrounding our
City's original platted area. As we all know, there is much work to be done in order to revitalize this city and to,
2
step by step, achieve the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that this application is one step in that
direction.
SECTION 2
The next sectipn of this document pains me to include, as it is ancillary. It may,. however, be considered rebuttal in
advance. At any rate, I will include it, `for your information", to be considered as you feel fit. It may, perhaps,
appeal to the soap opera enthusiast.
Background information may shed some light on our relationship with Charlene Rockovitr. Charlene and Ella
Peabody are the owners of the property immediately to the north of ours. Charlene's son, Darrin, rents the house
at that address. You may recall, and the record reflects, that on previous applications to the City concerning our
properly at 230 W. Pine, we have always had opposition from Charlene and her immediate family members. We
do not know for a fact that Charlene will oppose this application, but would expect it.
During previous hearings, we have not made the Rockovitzs' adversarial attitude an issue to be evidenced before
your respective organizations. We feel that the issues of our applications should stand on their own merit.
However, opposing testimony at public hearings does not go unnoticed and should not go unnoticed by public
officials. It is an important part of the process. If, though, the motivation of the testimony is for spite, I believe it
may be of importance to you who shoulder the serious respohsibility of determining the fate of citizen owned
property. Therefore, I would submit for your review the following chronology of events. I apologize in advance for
this boorishness.
1) 1998 -Merlyn and Brandon purchase and remodel 230 W. Pine. At this time, Chartene's mother was
alive and resided at the property immediately north of our property. Relationship between us was very
good.
2) Date unknown - Chartene's mother dies and property transfers to Charlene Rockovitr and Ella Peabody.
Charlene's son becomes tenant.
3) 2002-2003 -Application for zoning change and CUP for Sunshine Academy at 230 W. Pine. The
Rockovitrs opposed these applications. (Please note that the Sunshine Academy has subsequently
received approval from the City of Meridian at a different location.)
4) 2003 -Meeting of Schmeckpepers and Rockovitzs to discuss new fencing between the two properties. It
was agreed that the hog wire fence would be removed and that a new conforming wood fence would be
installed. Mutually agreed that a survey should be performed to determine the proper fence placement.
Conclusion: Existing fence removal, survey and new fence to be paid for by the Schmeckpepers. Existing
fence removal completed.
5) 2003 -Professional survey of Schmeckpeper properly located at 230 W. Pine.
6) 2003 -Meeting of Schmeckpepers and Rockovitzs to discuss survey results. Findings: The South edge
of the foundation of Charlene's house abuts the North property line of the Schmeckpeper property.
7) 2003 - Rockovitrs declare that survey was in error and perform unofficial survey to check results. As of
this date, no conflicting conclusions have been forwarded.
8) 2003 - Rockovitrs claim the land between their house and the previous general location of the hog wire
containment fence to the South of their house to be the rightful property line.
9) 2003 -Opposition to the zoning change and Sunshine Academy CUP is organized by Rockovitzs. Public
and written testimony submitted by Charlene Rockovitz to the City of Meridian (P& Z hearing).
10) Letter dated April 25, 2003 from Rokovitr's attorney J. Frederick Mack. (As follows)
11) May 1, 2003 - Rokovitr's attorney drafts a Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement (See attached).
Note that this agreement was rmt drafted by the Schmeckoeoers, but by the Rockovitzs own attornev.
The essence of the offer proposed to us was this.
1) Quit claim 5 feet of land from the legally described boundary overto Charlene Rockovitr. (Question:
Whv would we need to suit claim land if in fact the Rockovitr were the rightful owners.)
2) At our expense, provide a new 6' tall wood fence and maintain it.
3) In return for this, the Rockovitrs would, from the date of the settlement, not oppose the then current
application for zoning change and the CUP application of Sunshine Academy. They specifically stated
that they would not "(i) attend, submit materials for, or otherwise participate in any public hearings or
proceedings before any government entity related to the Use Application and/or (ii) solicit the
opposition of any other individual or entity to the Use Application."
12) May 1, 2003 -Merlyn and I agree to the terms of the agreement and are to sign subsequent to
Rockovitr's applying their signatures Mav 2. 2004.
13) May 2, 2003 -Merlyn and I decided not to sign the agreement and the following gives evidence as to why
we made that decision. This is an excerpt from an email (05/04103) from myself to attorney Kelly Garrity
who was representing us before the City of Meridian.
"Picked up documents (agreement and quit claim) from his (Rockovitr's attorney, Fred Mack) office
3:45pm FNday, May 2. Fred's assistant (Nicole) asked that 1 fax her a parcel map that we had
shown them in our meeting. She wants to use as exhibits in agreement. Also agreed to fax them
new legal description from our surveyor. I have attached what I will be faxing to her in this email.
Won't have the survey description until Monday morning.
Reviewed agreement document with Merlyn Saturday and these things come to light.
1) Agreement has place for date but not dated. No date by Rokovitz's signatures either. This may
be important for the following reason.
Friday afternoon Merlyn received call from City of Meridian to pick up City Council package. He
did so, and included in this packet is another group of opposition signatures that the (Charlene)
Rokovitz's fumed in. The signature document is marked as "received May 2". I don't know if they
turned in on the way to Fred's or on the way home. Maybe makes no difference, but sure shows
intent!!! I'm sure Fred had no knowledge of this, but he will have Monday after we converse...
...FINAL NOTE:
The last minute submission to the City by the Rokovitzs breaks the intent of the agreement and
shows deception. I am fairly confident that there will be something instigated by the Rokovitzs
Tuesday night. With that feeling, I'm not sure that we should be so quick to set ourselves up for a
situation with the possibility of no upside (we lose Tuesday and lose our land both). We have to
make a decision soon as to which course of action to take...
...Please call Monday morning to discuss........Brandon"
14) May 6, 2003 -City Council denies rezone and CUP.
15) Post May 6, 2003 -Without notice and consent, the Rockovitzs erect a NEW hog wire fence South of the
Schmeckpeper's North property line as defined by survey pins located at the NW and NE corners.
16) Post May 2003 - Rockovitr retain new attorney.
1 ~ Letter dated November 5, 2003 from Rockovitr's new attgmey Randal J. French. (As follows)
HOLLAND & HART Lt.e
ArrONNEYS AT LAW
Oe1Ya1 • ANPEN
eoulo®. mLOM00 svaNm
mamas . eovE
[N!rlNNE • ]Aat80N HOIE
£ALT lAlE QIY •lUR1 R
wASnsxaroN, o.c.
!Un! i400
101 SON1N CAPROL miULlVAND
'eO15f. faAxO !l)OF1IlI
wAfuxa Aoov~s
FA. sort 5511
a015E, mAxO !l101-K])
April 25, 2003
Mr. Merlyn D. Schmeckpeper
157 E. Ada Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Rokovltz Property
Dear Mr. Schmockpeper:
TEIEFxONE )3aa)3~3-5000
FACSa11LE corn) ]t3-esN9
J. Frederick Mack
M1nackehNllantlhart.com
Holland & Hart Lie ie legal counsel to Rocky and Charlene Rokovitz.
The Rokovitz's have asked us to represent them in connection with a dispute
regarding the property line they share with you.
Our understanding is that you recently removed a fence from the
Rokovitz's property without their permission and informed thorn that the legal
description of your property falls within the former fencelino and the
Rokovitz's house. Prior to this, the fence had bean on the property for over 25
years and was considered to be the boundary between the two properties.
Based on these facts, we believe the parties have astabliahed a 5oandary
by agfgsraeat. Boundary by agreement. is a legal doctrine in which courts will
taogaize a property line that bas boon treated as the actual boandsry between
taro propertdoa eves thoagh the legal dewtiiptioa of the ptoportias indicates
oEherwiae. -zas~,,..zaF~it
Our clients would like to resolve this issue amicably. Please contact me
. ~ ,~ Imaa qro
Sineanly
Hblllmd & $art Eu
. Fn:n~o~~i~p~'11~c'k~~
cc: Rocky and Cherlwte Rokovttz
]aT6T90_1.nOC
4
19) March 22, 2004 - As of this date no addkional correspondence has been receive from attorney Randal J.
French or the Rockovitzs themselves.
For the record, there is no ambiguity in our legal description. We know exactly where our property starts and
finished and there are professional and legal survey pins to identify the boundary thereof. We have a legal right to
use our land as we choose within the guidelines of Federal, State and Local laws. Our application for zoning
change, as submitted to the City of Meridian, is clear and in compliance with the 2002 Comprehensive, Plan. With
the approval of the City Council, we will move forward pursuant to that application.
END OF SECTION -ALMOST DONE!
Chadene Rockovitz has voiced and petitioned that °Keeping this a residential neighborhood" is very important.
Any "change' from what the neighborhood is today, does not appear to be acceptable to the Rockovitzs. I
respectfully disagree with the Rockovitzs. Logically, it is inevitable that all urban neighborhoods will change over
time. It is only a question of whether neighborhoods will positively evolve or negatively deteriorate. We have made
a concerted effort to invest labor and funds to improve the state of our property. It is important to do so. The
neighborhood and the city, as a whole, benefit from this. The state of this immediate neighborhood is in various
phases of deterioration. On the following page are a few images that give evidence to this deterioration (as well
as ordinance infractions). I believe that upkeep, renovation and pride in property appearance are very important in
determining what "face" inevitable change will wear.
Thank you for your time and your great deliberation and consideration of this application.
Sincerely,
~~~~~
Brandon Schmeckpeper
13
November 5, 2003 Randal J. Frcnck
383-0030
Merlyn Schmeckpepper, Trustee Brandon F. Schmeckpepper, Trustee
l57 E. Ada Street 8810 Churchill Road
Meridian, ID 83642 Boise, ID 83709
Gentlemen:
1 represent Ronald and Chazlme Rokovitz. They own the real property identified as 918
W. 3rd Street, Meridian, ID 83642. You own the property adjacent to theirs, as trustee
pursuant to a trust which I understand the two of you created.
As 1 understand, in 1974, the McQueena sold to Mrs. Rokovitz's mother the two lots
which make up 918 W. 3rd Street, Meridian. The McQueens owned the property that you
now own. At that time, with the McQueens' agreement, Mrs. Rokovitz's mother built
both her residence, and built a fence between her residence and McQueens' residence,
which you now own. Both Mrs. Rokovitz's mother and the McQueens treated that fence
as the propery line between their respective properties.
When Mrs. Rokovitz's mother built the residence, the builder built it according [o then
existing building codes, including appropriate set backs from the property line. It was
approved by all appropriate and necessary building inspectors at that time. All parties
treated the fence which Mrs. Rokovitz's mother built as the property line.
Prom what i ult~:rataud, mast of the other properties in tll~ ueigl;Lurlwo:l waxed liu:ir
property lines on a common understanding of where all of the property lines in the
subdivision existed.
I understand that the two of you purchased the property adjacent to the Rokovitu'
property on 3rd Street in the late 1990x. I understand that from the time that you
purchased the property, until April, 2003, you also treated the fence as the properly line.
That shows a continuing common understanding between the parties as to where the
property line posted.
BAUER ~t FRENCH
Arrawers Ar I.~w
733 N. 7rh Sweet / P.O. Box 2730 / Boire, Idaho 83701-2730
f1081 383-0090 / Fa:: (109) 3ai-0411
6
Merlyn Schmeckpepper, Trustee
Brandon F. Schmeckpepper, Trustee
November 5, 2003
Page 2
I understand [hat in April, 2003, you hired a surveyor who then purported to survey the
property and determine that none of the property lines were as the parties had agreed for
almost 30 years. I understand that you told Mrs. Rokovitz that you were going to put a
fence up between your property and hers. 1 understand that you [hen removed the Fence
which had existed since 1974, but never replaced that fence. I understand that you have
now taken the position that [he property line actually comes so close to the Rokovitzs'
home on 3rd Street that the eaves of the Rokovitzs' home would be over the properly
line.
>n a variety of decisions issued in the last few years, the Idaho Supreme Court has
addressed the right to property in which the boundary has been established over a long
period of time, as is the case with the Rokovitzs. Nerder v. Shaw, 65 P.3d 525 (2003),
Cox v. Clanton, 50 P.3d 987 (2002) and GriJfel v. Reynolds, 34 P.3d 1080 (2001) aze all
decisions which establish that a party can enforce a boundary by agreement and that a
fence that has been in place for a long period of time, here for almost thirty years that the
Rokovitzs or Mrs. Rokovitz's mother have owned that property, is competent evidence of
[ha[ boundary by agreement. No one challenged that boundary by agreement until
April, 2003.
Please do not touch any part of the Rokovitzs' property. They will take appropriate legal
action if you or any of your employees or agents, or any other third party, trespasses on
their property or commits waste on their property. Please govern your actions
accordingly.
I am informed that Merlyn Schmeckpepper has trespassed on the Rokovitzs' property,
and in particulaz in October, 20D3, came onto the Rokovitzs' property, blocked the
Rokovitzs' son, who lives in the 3rd Street residence, from backing out, and demanded
that he have the Rokovitzs contact Merlyn Schmeckpepper. Please do not come on the
Rokovitzs' property at all in the future. The Rokovitzs have no question but that you do
not intend to resolve any disputes reasonably or peaceably. Tn the future, they do not
intend [o spend a second arguing with you. They will call the police on each occasion in
which you trespass on their property or make any effort to destroy their property.
You did destroy the fence which had been in place since 1974. They have had to spent
$35 to obtain a fence permit and obtain fencing materials to replace that fence. Tn
7
Merlyn Schmeckpepper, Trustee
Brandon F. Schmeckpepper, Trustee
November 5, 2003
Page 3
addition, they had to use some fence posts which they owned at the time. You aze liable
for the cost [o replace the fence which you unlawfully destroyed. To resolve the claims
for the materials which they were forced to use, for their labor and to purchase a permit to
build a fence, please pay to the Rokovitzs $t 50.
In addition, the Rokovitzs have incurred legal fees of over $1,500 to address the problems
you have caused by entering their property, tearing down their Cence, and forcing them to
seek legal assistance. Please remit to me your check for $1,500 to reimburse them, within
21 days.
In addition, the Rokovitzs believe that it would be appropriate to built a six foot wood
privacy fence between [heir property and yottrs, on the property line which has been
established since 1974. ]f you will pay for half of that six foot privacy fence along the
property line between your property and the Rokovitzs, to the fencing company of the
Rokovitzs' choice, in advance, the Rokovitzs will pay the other half of the cost of that
fence. However, if you wane to do so before winter hits, you have a limited period of
time to tell the Rokovitzs, in writing at their address at 19487 Apricot lane, Caldwell, ID
83607, that you will agree to do so. The Rokovitzs will provide you with a written
estimate which they have obtained Crom a fencing company. Once you have paid half of
that estimate to the fencing company, and your check hoe cleared, the Rokovitzs will pay
their half and the fencing tympany will then be in a position to install the fence. If that
does not happen before the ground freezes, then it is not likely that it will happen until
April, 2004 at the earliest. However, installing a six foot privacy fence may do much to
defuse any tension concerning the properly line between your property and the Rokovitzs'
property.
Furthermore, the Rokovitzs believe that you have undertaken remodeling of your property
without a building permit. If not, then it appears that you must be operating some kind of
a business out of that residence. In any event, it appears that you do no[ have appropriate
permits to be undertaking either remodeling or the operation of a business on that
property. Please ensure that you apply for a building permit if you are making any repairs
or remodeling. The Rokovitzs will request the Meridian City Building Department to
inspect your residence to determine whether you are in fact remodeling without a building
permit.
Merlyn Schmeckpepper, Trustee
Brandon F. Schmeckpepper, Trustee
November 5, 2t>03
Page 4
Please do nat come onto the Rokovitzs' property. Please do not interfere with the
Rokovitzs' property line, remove the fence which is on that property line, or otherwise
encroach upon the Rokovitzs' property in any way. Please ensure that your conduct
conforms with the requirements of city planning and caning, and with building code as to
permits.
Please govern your actions accordingly.
RIF/nrg
cc Ron and l'harlene Rokovitz
9
18) February 4, 2004 -Response letter from myself to Randal J. French Sent 02/05/04 certified
Randal J. French
• Bauer 8 Fronch February 4, 2D04
733 N. 7r' St.
P.O. Box 2730
Bola, Idaho 83701-273D
Sir.
In reteremx to your brier dated November 5, 2003.
Plana arxxrpt my apobgfa for the delay in responding. I have had urgent madam to deal
wnh and have otherrrtae bean indbpoad. 1 vrould offer the following comments for your
review.
I wnl aaaume that you are ~ rapreaerrdng Ronald and CMrtene Rokovi~. l wIN ebo spume
tlwt you know that J. Frodsddc Mac of HoNend 3 Hart LLP wa the ikst attorney of record
that I know of retained by the Rokovltza' h thb mslbr. H you are indeed Interested in the
fads arrrourrdkrg thb metier and vroM an underslandirrg of the rela0onship and difficunbs
therein, I would sborrply euggaat that you coMed Mr. Mack for background infonnetion end a
chrendogy of the actual evann that iraurepked prior to your being retairrad. I believe that any
inelght that you reoelve irem Mr. Mack will offer another part live on, not only, the Irfebry
of tide matter, but also on your cJieMe truthfulnep and . This may be of value to you.
You may alw want to tdk to the Account Recehr®bb depaNneM. This may be of value a
you.
• That being said. d w!p aerw ra puryoa hero a, pokrt by Point, dispute the chime of your
charts. There may be a tlme, scan appropriate venire, that the'hog wire" fence iasw will be
hetlter evidatoed. Thu miselatemeM of fact aMd IMlanmalary threats in your
corteapondence shun in majority, ter now, be overboked. We wiA, a sro akrays have, make
every effort to roconaae this metier dfplomatkeny and paoafuny. We had no altercations with
and we enjoyed ha+Ang Chaderre's mother as our neighbor wMle she wa alhro. We win do
the very beat we can, &~ raped for her end her manory, fo cob her daughter. as molt as
b feaaibb end fa#.
We have, with the ~ of irrfomation provided by Charlene, ban able to determine where
the odginel conatrudion enor ocaered. In a oonvetsalion witty Mertyn on er about April 17,
2003, l.harbna provded the folbw4rg inelpld. She tateled Utat she Imd talked to the original
buYder of the hove end he told her he had delsrtr>irretl adrere the South property Nne of their
bt was by meaeuring plortlr from a dnderDlodc roWMlnyf warn. Thb rMaining wall runs parensl
wnh W. Pine St. and b to the South of our property. This was a mieteke. The retalrkrg wan b
not dye South boundary of our property and k, in fad, brsWs ?~CH~'s right of way. The South
boundary of our property b 4 in 5 feet b the NoAh of rite rolakring wall. Becaua of this error,
the builder bcatad the house too tar to the South. Ae this wa an obvkws error, n can be
daduosd that the odgkwd ae~r of fire properly never irdarbed tha dividkrg property line >o be
wtpsre Charlene would Ifke n to ba and both pmpertla deaeripdona ~nflm that fad.
Gfa-bne'a own statemsM to Mayn In a rated phorre oooversatlorr occurring April 5, 2003
urea that the hog wW fence vwrs d by her than current husband to 'contain her
mother's dog' tM10 that he'didn't concern Mrrrsalf wiry err pay ary a1lendon to property nna".
• Thera would be intls to centat her staEsmeM beeaute 1hs otiglnal ferroe was not conetnrded
in a eorrdeAerr~+ etralght nns and wa atao skewed m the house Wrs. Thb evidences the fad
Page 1 d 1
10
that the fence and the house could not have bean laid out from the same East-West line.
• Platted lot and block does ARE consistently streight. If you check this subdivision plat you will
see this to be true in this partiwlar subdivision as wed. d wee a valid and understandable
statement for Chadene to make and we did not and would not, based upon our experience,
ever have believed that this particular fence was acwalty on the legal property line.
Incidantalty, have you yourself ever seen a fence exactly on a property line9 And why would
you care to chack7 This is why we have legally recorded plats in the modem world. This
system, however, doesn't deter those who try and obtain Isnd that ie not legaly recorded as
theirs.
Note That when Charlene made the statement in question, she knew that we were going to
have the property wrveyed. She left little doubt that she strongty agreed that it should be
surveyed based upon another of her comments. She said, 'ff you had any sense, you would
first of all have your property surveyed before instaldng a new fence so R could go on the
property boundary'. However, Chadene and her then curent husbend/fence builder didn't
feel this was important when they constructed the containment fence. Why? The most
obvious deduction is that they never interMed ff to be along the property line and this
supports her initial statement that the fence was erected to 'contain her mother's dog' end
that her husband 'didn't concern himseff with or pay any aKention to property lines". This
statement is of Interest because ft shows her 'posturing'. tt was obvious that she was
concerned that the survey may show her property doe to be further South than where the
fence was located and subsequentty wanted Medyn to know that she was not claiming the
fence as the legal property boundary. In other words, she was not willing to live by the fence
and die by the fence ff, in fact, the survey showed that she was the rightful owner of land on
the other (South) aide of the fence. On the other hand, ff the survey showed the property line
to be on the North skle of the fence (and d did), then magically, this fence becomes the bog
• lasting property boundary (however non-unffortn). The 'I win' and 'I win' scenario that
Charlene would desire re very interesting and gives teMimony to the absence of integrity.
We have on different occasions told the Rokovitzs' that we would deed them ground between
our two properties to provide them southern ecoess Zd Itleir beck yard. We are still of that
mind, in faU, we had reached an agreement to do just that in exchange for their wmmitment
to Deese end desist from trying, through great effort and hareaernerft, to determine any future
use of our properly. We believed then and still do that this is an equitable offer. The
Rokovilzs' fornal counsel, Mr. Madc, was ado of that mind and drafted the documents
accardingty. Chadene, either after or just before aigrtkrg that agreement, submitted additional
petitlons against ue to the City of Meridian. h was this breach of the agreement or, at the very
I~et, breach of the °apidP of the agreement (depending on the time line) that terminated any
diabg and hea dampened our amiceDle nature. tt is excesdingty diffieuff tc compel oneself to
draw into a contred with anyone who has demonstraUad that they will not stand behind Mel
word. I surmise (but do not know for fact) that Mr. Meek "Fired' the Rokovitzs' for their
grievous lack of integrity.
The original removal of the fence was with notice (a site meeting) and mutual agreement.
The trespassing and haphazard installation (follows no parellel lines) of the new non-
eonfonning 'hog wire° fence was not. The City of Mer[dlan, has'red tagged° the installation
of the fence and will not approve the installation of the fence until it is placed on the
Rokovllzs' legaly 0eecribed property (assuming the materials and construction methods
corrfarn with the requirements of city planning and zoning and with building code).
•
Page 2 of 2
11
As of this writing, the Rokovilzs' are sttil pursuing a course of action of trying to determine for
• us any use for our property. To continue on this path of spite is not a show of good wdl and is
NOT conducive to the reconciliation of this unfortunate matter. We would be thrilled if they
would direct their abundant energy, instead of trying to prevent us from improving our
property, to improving, or at the very least, maintaining and respecting the land and house of
Cherlene's deceased mother.
We wig, however, still work to resolve this issue if, in the event of eontred breach, monetary
penadies end court direc6ed re-conveyance are inckided in any agreement, IF these
contingencies are included and acceptable, we will deed the North four (4) feet of our
property to Chadene. All experutss to faoilitete this transfer of property will be at the
Rokovi~s' expense. Tenninobgy as follows could be acc;eptebk::
Aareement by Rokovkzs Not to Ooooae Use or Rezonino. The Rokovkzs agree that from the
date of this Seldement, they will not oppose applications by Schmeckpepere' before any
governmental entity for conditional use permits, vadenas or any change in the zoning and/or
chY or county ordinance(s) pertaining to property owned in whole or in part by Merlyn
Sehmeekpeper and/or Brandon Schmeckpeper. M wnneedon wkh the foregoing, the
Rokovifzs agree that they will not {i) attend, submit metedels for, or otherwise participate in
erry public hearings or proceedings before any governmental entity specifically related to
property owned in whole or in part by Meryn Schmeckp~er and/or Brandon Schmeekpeper
and/or (ii) solicit any individual or entity to oppose, attend, submit materials for, or otherwise
partcipate in any public hearings or proceedings before any govemmentel entity specificatiy
r'e~ted to property owned in whole or in part by Marlyn Schmeckpeper and/or Brendon
Schmeckpeper. The Rokovilzs agree that iF it be determined by a governing Court ai Lew
• that they have breached this agreement that thoy (i) will pay to the Sohmeckpepere' or their
estate $10,000 dollars in U.S. currency and (ii) wfil re-convey ihru quit claim deed that
properly received by virtue of this agreement and (iii) will pay, in addition, the
Schmeckpepere' legal expenses, including court costs and reasonable adomey fees.
We bok forward to resolving th~ issue wflh the Rokovi~s' at the eadiest possible
convenience and please govern your actions accordingly. I thank you for your time.
Future correspondence may be sent to the following address:
157 E. Ada
Meridian, Idaho 83642
(208)283-9494
Sincerely,
~~
Brandon Sehmedrpeper
C~
Page 3 of 3
12
CITY OF MERIDIAPI
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
BATE April 1, 2004 ITEM # 9
PROJECT NUMBER RZ 04-001
PROJECT NAME IdIDAYS Addition
NAME PLEASE PRINT FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
~ w `7`- c~