HomeMy WebLinkAboutLegal Email with Attachments1
Machelle Hill
From:Bill Nary
Sent:Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:31 AM
To:JoAnn Butler
Cc:Machelle Hill; C.Jay Coles; Lynn Southam; Joshua Beach
Subject:Tree Farm Request for Reconsideration
Attachments:2-17.ISC 67-6535.pdf; 2-17.RequestforReconsideration.MCC.pdf; 2-22-17.Request.pdf
JoAnn;
We received this request from Lynn Southam on behalf of some or all of the Spurwing Greens property
owners. The City Council approved the Findings last night. We will accept supplements to this filing or any
additional filings until 5:00 on March 8 th . After March 8 th we will determine a time and date to be in front of
the City Council for their consideration and decision. We will provide email notice to the parties, including the
applicant, M3. The City Council will only consider the written material that is part of the record since the
decision of February 7 th .
All additional filings will all become part of the public record for this application. I have included Mr. Southam
on this email as well. If either of you have any concerns about the process please contact me so that we can
discuss.
Bill Nary | City Attorney & Risk Manager
City of Meridian | City Attorney’s Office
33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: | 208-898-5506
Built for Business, Designed for Living
All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law,
in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law.
LYNN Wm. SOUTHAM
6408 North Salvia Way
Meridian, Idaho 83646
(303) 916-1009
lwslawagniail.com
February 16, 2017
The Honorable Mayor Tammy de Weerd
and
Members of the City Council
City of Meridian, Idaho
33 East Broadway Avenue, Suite 300
Meridian, Idaho 83641
}� t o
FEB 2 17
CITY OFCI;fuiv
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
Re: Tree Farm Subdivision (H2016-0128)
Dear Mayor de Weerd and Members of the Meridian City Council,
At the request of a number of residents in the SpurWing Greens Subdivision, and in my
own interest as well, I am writing to protest construction and resident traffic through our
subdivision incident to the development of a subdivision, not associated with ours, in the
area immediately to the west of Spurwing Greens and north of Chinden and which is
already, or can be, accessed from Black Cat.
Though I am an attorney and have been licensed to practice before the United States
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Colorado, the Supreme Court of Iowa, and the
United States Court of Military Appeals, I have informed my neighbors and fellow
residents that I am retired from the practice of the law and that I have never been licensed
to practice in Idaho. Therefore, this letter is not written by way of legal representation of
those who have asked me to write you. Rather, it is an attempt to inform and alert you to
issues pertaining to public policy and public safety which are at the heart of your
responsibilities as our elected leaders. 1 trust my observations will be of help to you as
you consider the petitions, letters, phone calls, and other contacts you are experiencing
from the residents of SpurWing Greens Subdivision who, along with the citizens of
Meridian, have entiusted you with a solemn duty to protect them and their property in
matters such as this.
To facilitate this presentation, I have attached three exhibits, two of which have
attachments. Exhibit 1 is a copy of a letter from Robert Neufeld to you which addresses
the issue of traffic volume and flow through our subdivision and which already exceeds
the acceptable traffic counts for the only entrance and exit into and out of our subdivision
and which the new project will compound with its construction vehicles and the traffic of
the residents who purchase the 90 new homes planned for construction over the next
couple of years. Mr. Neufeld's presentation makes clear that the ACRD staff strongly
recommended against approval of this project. However, the ACHD Commission ignored
its own staff s recommendations that the project not be approved. This was done without
even acknowledging or commenting on the recommendation. ACHD proceeded to
approve the proposal and passed it on to you for final approval without, apparently,
informing you of the recommendations of its staff and the reasons why their staff was
against approving the proposal. As an attorney, I find that very interesting and a fact I
would want to have at my disposal in the event future events called for such information.
The fact that children board and exit school buses at the intersection of Tree Farm (the
primary road the new project will severely impact), and Tree Haven is something that our
neighborhood is very worried about. Additionally, the resident traffic at the intersection
of Tree Farm and Chinden is already complicated because of the traffic light sequencing
and the sheer volume of people going to and from work at the same time construction and
other vehicles from the new subdivision will be there makes a recipe for disaster in the
future. Attachments A and B to Exhibit I are photos of the intersection of Tree Farm
Way and Tree Haven. Though they are not fully detailed they demonstrate the reality of
this intersection already being busy. Every school morning, and afternoon, parents drive
to this intersection and park, primarily, along Tree Haven where their children are enter
or exit school buses. This is across the street from a large park where the kids play as
they wait. These circumstances call to mind the statement that decisions determine
destiny. You can decide to let additional traffic, not associated with our subdivision, use
our roadways, but that choice will result in consequences with which all of us will hfe to
live. Being fore warned or alerted is a serious measure to consider. And when a decision
is made to permit an already over -burdened traffic flow to be multiplied by a factor of at
least 50%, the chances (indeed the likelihood) for tragedy is significantly, and
foreseeably enhanced. With ACRD having been warned by their staff about this traffic
flow issue, the question will resonate when the tragedy occurs, "Why didn't somebody
listen to the experts who told them not to approve this?" And then follows the obvious
inquiry, "What liability do we have for this event?" In reality, even this letter becomes
part of the data base for someone who might assert a claim for personal injuries to
themselves or their children, or worse, incident to the foreseeable accidents which will, in
time, likely occur. Such foreseeable tragedies will result from the refusal, by proper
authorities, to follow the recommendations of the very staff entrusted to do the spade
work for the ACHD Commission which was entrusted with recommending to you
whether or not such a project should be approved.
When M3 held a meeting at a motel (in a hard to get to location) in November, many
residents from SpurWing Greens showed up to learn about this proposed development. In
general, all were opposed to it. Following the meeting when Mr. Neufeld asked Mr. Mark
Tate whether M3 would develop Black Cat to handle the construction traffic. He simply
responded by saying they would try to get a waiver. It appears that M3 was impacted by
the public turn out for their November meeting and likely took steps to insure that the
public (the residents of SpurWing Greens Subdivision) was not informed of the formal
meetings which were necessary for final approval of its proposals.
Exhibit 2 is a letter from Gary Walker. It documents the cavalier approach to this project
by M3 Companies LLC, the applicant for this project. Let me list several items in that
regard. The first is the letter, Attachment A to Exhibit 2, sent to a few residents in
SpurWing Greens, all of whom live on Pira Avenue which is located on the last street on
the far -left edge of the attached map, Attachment B to Exhibit 2. Notice that
Attachment A to Exhibit 2 makes absolutely no reference to SpurWing Greens or the
fact that the entrance into SpurWing Greens will be used by the construction and resident
traffic of the new, unaffiliated, subdivision. In fact, look at the map on the letter
(Attachment A). There is absolutely nothing on it to suggest IN ANY FASHION, that
Tree Farm Vijay will be used to accommodate such traffic. Consequently, there is nothing
to put the residents in SpurWing Greens, in general, or on Pira Avenue, in particular, on
notice of the intent of the new development to use the only entrance/exit of our
subdivision for the construction and resident traffic associated with the new subdivision.
A closer look at the reap, Attachment B to Exhibit 2, will also demonstrate the reality of
a single entrance/exit at the intersection of Chinden and Tree Farm Way. All homes in the
Grove, the Orchard the Reserve, and the Estates of SpurWing Greens use that single
entrance/exit. It doesn't take much of an imagination to see how that narrow traffic artery
at Tree Farm Way and Chinden becomes clogged even now without the projected burden
of the construction and resident traffic of the new, unaffiliated subdivision. However, all
of residents in SpurWing Greens will be affected by it if it goes forward. However,
except for the few homes on Pira Avenue, none of the homes in SpurWing Greens
received any notice of this new project which will significantly, and negatively, impact
their ability to get into and out of SpurWing Greens.
Further, no Notice of Public Hearing was ever placed where the residents of SpurWing
Greens could see it and be aware of it even though they were the ones to be affected by
this proposed project. Also, notice that the map on Attachment A to Exhibit 2 fails to
show the reality of Black Cat going north off from Chinden towards the proposed
subdivision. Yet in M3's discussion with the residents from SpurWing Greens in the
November meeting, the drawings it showed those in attendance showed the completed
Black Cat leading from Chinden north to the subdivision so that Tree Farm Way would
not need to be used by that subdivision in the future.
M3 may make the argument that they did place signs alerting people of the proposed
subdivision. Though that may be technically correct, let me disclose what M3 actually
did. First of all, it placed a sign, Attachment C to Exhibit 2, on the north end of Black
Cat, a street which is not open to thru traffic and which leads to no side streets. No one in
SpurWing Greens uses this road nor anyone else to my knowledge except for the single
family which lives there. The sign is across the road from that house on Black Cat and is
approximately 1,000 feet north of Chinden. At some point that sign was apparently blown
over and who knows when that happened? It remains on its face at this time so that no
one can read it or even be aware of it should they wander down this dead-end road.
However, this photo and Attachment D to Exhibit 2 show that Black Cat is a road that
could be used for the construction traffic to get nearly to the subdivision site. There is
another road, not named, that bends to the right off from Black Cat and goes around the
northern end of Jayker Wholesale Nursery, a large nursery on the north side of Chinden.
This road could complete access to the proposed subdivision area by construction traffic.
At this time large trucks leaving the nursery often go that way in order to access Tree
Fawn Way and the stop light controlled intersection at Tree Farm Way and Chinden. And
although I am not suggesting that the construction traffic should do the same, I am
suggesting that the construction traffic could use that route in a reverse order and go over
to Black Cat and down to Chinden thus eliminating the problems associated with the use
of Tree Farah Way. ITowever, M3 has made no reference to these roads in its proposal. It
appears that it wants to avoid the cost of improving Black Cat as long as possible. And if,
in fact, M3 only builds 90 homes, there is apparently no requirement for them to improve
BIack Cat and their new residents could continue to use Tree Farm for years to coarse.
That would permit M3 time to sell the rest of its property and avoid that expense of
improving Black Cat or to ponder its options for the future. Nice.
Secondly, M3 placed one sign, Attachment E to Exhibit 2, on a fence located on a dead-
end extension off from Pira Avenue. There are no homes on that extension and it bumps
up to a fence which prevents anyone from driving through the fence. There is no reason
for anyone to use that extension. To complicate matters, with the record snow fall in
December and January, the snow was pushed and/or drifted into that extension and was
higher than the fence thus hiding the notice. Who knows whether it was placed there
before or after the snow fall? As Attachment E demonstrates, even after days of massive
melting, the snow on February 15'h is still higher than the fence in some areas and has
just recently melted sufficiently for people to see the notice if they approach the
extension from the left side. So why would anyone go there for any reason and, by
chance, see the notice?
The third sign was placed on the backside of Pira and Greenspire Drive (Attachment F
to Exhibit 2). The sign is laying on its side for some reason. No one can read it. It was
standing for a while during the heavy snow storms and had snow covering most of it so
that it could not be read. Of interest is that no one drives in that area except for
construction workers who are putting large pipes in the ground. Attachment G to
Exhibit 2 shows the condition of Tree Farm at its intersection with Tree Haven looking
west to Black Cat Road. This is not a viable roadway for construction and residential
traffic from the proposed subdivision along Tree Farm to the intersection with Chinden. It
makes more sense to improve Black Cat, if needed, and to exit the proposed subdivision
there to get to Chinden. For those who would argue that someone must have seen these
signs or else these observations could not be, made, consider the fact that people were sent
out to search for any signs advertising public hearings after we heard of the approval of
the project by the City of Meridian.
In summary, we have a single entrance and exit for our SpurWing Greens subdivision
which is located at the intersection of Tree Farm Way and Chinden. It is already being
used in excess of the acceptable traffic counts provided to the City of Meridian in other
hearings for projects potentially affecting our subdivision. And our city leaders (you or
your predecessors) recognizing the impact of funneling already huge traffic flow through
a single stop light intersection, with the associated dangers for children boarding or
exiting school buses as well as home owners having to wait for prolonged periods to exit
our subdivision onto Chinden because of traffic light timing sequences and the increasing
traffic on Chinden -- which will only get worse over time, have not approved such
additional usage in past hearings.
As one trained in the law, and as one personally affected by the actions of M3, I don't
have to think long to conclude possible motives on the part of M3 for the approach it has
taken to not inform the residents of SpurWing Greens about its plans to use our Tree
Farm Way for its own purposes and financial gain.
To make it clear, to permit the use of the single entrance/exit at Chinden Blvd and Tree
Farms for the construction phase and the proposed Phase I and Phase II of a development
(up to 90 homes) expected to take from 2 to 3 years in a project that has absolutely
nothing to do with our subdivision is not only a danger to our children, but compounds
the problems presently being experienced by our residents entering and exiting our
subdivision. Considering the eventual extension of Black Cat, which would lead directly
into the planned development, the question is why not extend Black Cat now and remove
the serious challenges referenced above. To demonstrate the dangers associated with the
traffic flow referenced herein, let me share the following event. Earlier this month Gary
Walker was driving his vehicle on Tree Farm Way, going towards Tree Haven. The
roadway is divided there by a medium. As he drove he was confronted by a semi -truck
driving down Walker's side of the street. The truck had just left the intersection of Tree
Farm and Tree Haven and was on his way to the stop light at Tree Farm Way and
Chinden. Gary and the truck driver stopped before their vehicles hit each other. The track
driver's excuse for driving the wrong way on Walker's side of the street was that his
vehicle was too large to snake the right turn which would take him to the stop light. Gary
told him he could not do that. The truck driver simply got in his truck and drove on. Gary
called the police and reported the incident with the truck driver whose vehicle is owned
by Bird, Inc.
We have no opposition to homes being built in the new subdivision which is not part of
our subdivision. However, it was our understanding that the hearing which was held was
to discuss REZONING the property for the new subdivision near SpurWing Greens to
less dense housing. At no time were we told that the proposal included language which
would permit construction and residential traffic in the new subdivision to utilize our
single, two lane entrance/exit of our subdivision. We were not told that because the
proposal did not contain such vital information. And since the present use of Tree Farm
Way ALREADY EXCEEDS the acceptable traffic counts provide the City in prior
hearings, and referenced by the ACRD staff in this case, there was/is no reason to believe
the City had changed its position or regard for staff recommendations as reflected in prior
hearings for projects not approved, to now let constzuction and new subdivision resident
traffic use our roadways regardless of the public interests and public safety issues
associated with it. And with a number of homes still being built in our own subdivision
this year under prior proj ect approval by appropriate governmental agencies, the problem
will only get worse even without the traffic associated with the construction and
occupancy in the new subdivision. Consequently, I request for myself, and on behalf of
my neighbors and friends, that you reconsider your approval of the proposed subdivision.
Require M3 to make other arrangements for the movement of its construction and
residential vehicles rather than permitting them to use our streets with the associated risks
and realities detailed above.
Finally, Exhibit 3 is a public notice of a hearing regarding a study pertaining to the US
20/26 Corridor, I-84 to Eagle Road, highway. It is obvious that something is going to be
done affecting Chinden which is Highway 20/26. A timely decision now by the City of
Meridian regarding the concerns addressed in this letter may preempt other actions that
might otherwise become necessary as the Highway 20/26 issues surface as that roadway
is modified in the future.
Sincerely,
L �. h
cc: Office of the Meridian City Attorney
Eri Isom"_ T-11-2
� �411
QN,
AN
u
oil V-
i
EM :N
' ,..Map
, -_
f
Inti
.Tp�MF,
i all r.
wlL� w
219612017 Signage notification for Tree Farm Subdivision- Iwslaw@gmail.com - GmaiI
Gary Walker 2:33 PM (9 hour ago)
to me
was personally late to the game regarding the public hearings on the Tree Farm Subdivision. I did not receive any
notification regarding the hearings even though I will be greatly impacted because of the one entrance and exit to
Spurwing Greens/ Orchards/ Estates/ Reserve, which would be used by the new Subdivision as well. The individuals
who did received notification by mail were those who primarily live on Pira. My understanding is the letters were
received during the height of the winter storms and made no mention that the Spurwing Green entrance would be the
only access for the new Subdivision and construction. Those individuals assumed that Black Cat road would be
utilized for construction and access to the new Subdivison,
Now regarding the signage. There are two signs posted in the most secreted and un -obvious locations. One is located
on Snow Cherry off of Pira which is a dead end street with no postal address and no through traffic. The second is on
the Subdivision property on BlackCat approximately 500ft. from Chinden. There is one home to the West of the sign
and 1 have never seen any cars go down that road unless they are going to the farm house. It is evident to me that
public input and therefore public interest was not on the minds of the individuals who posted the signage.
It is my sincere hope that the City Council of Meridian reconsider this subdivision until a reasonable traffic solution can
be worked out.
Sincerely, Gary R. Walker
https:l/mail.gwogle.coralmaillu/oMribox/15a48dadbec6fd9e 111
Contact the Community
Development Department at
884-5533 for more
information. A copy of the
application is also available to
view on our website at
www.merldiancity.org
Any and all Interested persons
shall be heard at said public
hearing and the public is
welcome and invited to submit
testimony,
Written materials should be
submitted to the City ClerWs
Office at 33 E. Broadway Ave.,
Meridian, Idaho 83542 no later
than 7 days priorto the hearing
date listed on this notification.
*Anyone desiring accornrnoda-
tion for disabilities related to
the documents and/or hearings
p€ease contact the City Clerk's
Office at (208) 858-4433.*
C��fIEP,IDIAN--,
33 B. Broadway Ave., Merrdion ID 83642 y�
CITY OF MERIDIAN
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
.rn ,a ai— •.,, c �, wuy„��{''isy„,�„wrX'r} .at', :lii,rrrlwr�`c�'°.
;waonsNo—s
ap%pIf�F+;'L�".
• �' ' .N- w5„' ���'5���$^y�Rllth'lic•L.��.� i�44y:��:✓�N�i:l�.r
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Meridian will hold a public hearing at Meridian City Hall, 33 E.
Broadway Ave, Meridian, Idaho at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
February 7, 2097 for the purpose of reviewing and ibe
application H-2098-0128 by M3 Compantas, i..LC for a request for
a rezone of a portion of property from R-2 (10.17 acres), R-8
(33.84 acres) R-15 (.24 acres) to R-4 (44.26 acres) and rezone C -C
(.27 acres) and R-15 (154 square feet) to R-8 (.3 acres) and
Preliminary Plat consisting of 181 building lots and 15 common
lots on 61.64 acres of land In a proposed R-4 and R-8 zoning
districts for Tree Farm Subdivision located at 4740 W, Chinden
Blvd,
6786 N PIRA AVE
44�a(6At,� 1q,�x ,:l� r 2_.
CD
cn
o CD
3
0 f -"-w
3 0
CD
p
;u
U)
'n
ocn
a:)
CD
a)�:3
3
-
C
�°
-h'
Z3
CD
o
cc
CD
�3
-%4(D00CDn
o
=
—
0
M
w
�
cn
-n
CD
�-
cD
m
CD
cn
o CD
3
0 f -"-w
3 0
CD
Black Cat Road looking North From Chinden
Why Can't this road be used for construction
instead of Tree Farm?
P �d f0 -5 1 w � " .✓ /r!
Sign posted (#2) on fence off Pira Ave down short
side street without homes. As seen from Car window
As seen from sidewalk on Pira Ave
15 i
6 'A�L
' ''�► � � ,���, � ��� � sem, � r.
40
�•� cte w y °. y , .ice � �,�: �-^�
I ,IS�';- '-�}a!a�,.•"� � 4 � f � {�kr L4tVrrw �-+wcR• N'�0 0 i. � I
G j `+�1 • C.�`�Rq. r , Y ��I _, `,ice i,� L t�` `� ��,t `� y,5._
Y
�. � ia �� 'I � �t`•�'' � � �' ` � i ""r� � r_` ''.l��j J I.�,. � .k` : � . h =q�x�^4`L Q� � � '
'' , I 1
vv
++ g } "77
ti
�r y��l.�l�v. ._�,•„a'76� `'fes'— ( � ,� � � ul `1 •le(' � °pt: ��f
�F 4' f Jy i _jr ira I ' •.. y 1; 1i1 � �••' �'� j� �
,aor, eagr•,La" 1T1�'k ��� �V•, ` ^Dj, I � ,� r V' tti ,a I '� Y u � �i
5� s• ._
- -`'`•
N
Irk
VP
m
m (D -�
a i
:;WO - . I N
q 1uO T® S JaVY __> '? /% S -
Tree Farm from Tree Haven
looking west to Black Cat Road
�Gt.C�n V NP, - 61 15;7XIA � 4 2--
Robert Neufeld
3756 W Snow Cherry Ct
Meridian, Idaho 83646
February 14, 2017
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Meridian, Idaho
33 E Broadway Ave. Suite 300
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Subject: Tree Fann Subdivision (H-2016-0128)
At the City Council meeting on February 7, 2017 a public hearing was conducted regarding Tree
Farm Subdivision's request for zoning changes to allow for a change in lot size. Your approval
of this project allows the developer to proceed with constructing 90 lots of the 176 lot total for
the project. Since the archived copy of the minutes are currently unavailable on The City of
Meridian website I can only assume there was no report by City Staff or a public discussion of
the impacts the increased traffic this subdivision will create on an already overcrowded Tree
Farm Way north of Chinden Ave.
As a resident of the Spurwing Greens Subdivision I am solely reliant on Tree Farm. Way for
entrance and exit to my home. I wish to place a formal objection in the public record of your
decision to approve this development without due consideration for the impact of increased
traffic on Tree Farm Way. I am also requesting that any and all work currently underway on the
new Tree Farm Subdivision be halted until such time as a public hearing has been held to address
the impact of this increased traffic on Tree Farm Way north of Chinden Ave.
The proposed increase in Average Daily Trips created by the new Tree Farm Subdivision is
contrary to ASCHD Policy 7206.3.3. This policy clearly states "that if a proposed development
has one access to a public street that is classified as a collector, or if it accesses the public street
system, the maximum. forecast ADT (Average Daily Trips) to be allowed at ANY point on the
collector street is 3,000". Tree Farm Way is identified by ACHD and the City of Meridian as a
collector street and is therefore limited to 3,000 trips per day per ACHD Policy 7206.3.3.Tree
Farm Way north of Chinden Ave. had a daily traffic count of 3,070 as of October 2016. The
traffic analysis supplied by the developer/applicant before ACHD also noted that approximately
100 home sites within the Spurwing Greens Subdivision have been approved, but have not been
built on yet. Those lots would generate an additional 950 trips per day making the total daily
trips on Tree Farm Way north of Chinden Ave. approximately 4,020 trips per day, far exceeding
Mayor and Council Members
Page 2
the 3,000 ADT threshold without the additional traffic from the Tree Farm Subdivision. Adding
just the traffic from phase 1 & 2 of the Tree Farm Subdivision would increase the traffic on Tree
Farm Way north ofChinden Ave. to approximately 4,885 trips per day.
ACRD Staff in their Traffic Findings for Consideration of the developer's application was
presented to the ACHD Commissioners and is very specific in their findings. This development
(Tree Farm Subdivision) is estimated to generate 1,530 trips per day at build out. The
development would have only one public access Street directly to the development without Tree
Farm Way. The developer/applicant in his analysis presented to ACRD used the convoluted
logic that; 1. Only a short section of Tree Farm Way would exceed the ACRD threshold of
3,000 ADT. 2. The threshold will be exceeded based on existing approved development. 3.
With the development of Tree Farm Subdivision, the single collector access will be temporary.
The logic utilized by the developer/applicant does not address the length of the temporary
increase in traffic or the issue of public safety hazard due to increased construction traffic on the
two school bus stops located along Tree Farm Way at Jayker and at Tree Haven Way and Tree
Farm Way. Developer/applicant admits that they are aware of the threshold of 3,000 ADT but
want to add to that number significantly. ACHD policy is very specific in that "the maximum
forecast ADT to be allowed at ANY point on the collector street is 3,000". "This volume may be
reduced or increased based upon information received from the lead land use agency, the
applicable fire department, and/or emergency services". There is no record that is available to
the public that indicates that the lead land use agency (City of Meridian), fire department or
emergency services commented on the application before the ACHD Board of Commissioners.
It appears that ACRD did not receive any requests except from the developer/applicant for an
increase in the ADT and that the City of Meridian did not submit information to ACRD for them
to consider authorizing an increase in the ADT. My reading of the ACRD Policy 7206.3.3
indicates that ACHD cannot unilaterally grant an increase or decrease in ADT without a request
from the lead land use agency, fire department or emergency services for an increase or decrease
in ADT. ACRD not only ignored the recommendation by their own Staff to deny the
application and but also appears to have errored in granting the applicants request to increase
traffic on Tree Farm Way without a specific request from the lead land use agency, fire
department or emergency services. The City of Meridian must protect its constituents by
stepping up and reconsider the final approval of the Tree Farms Subdivision until such time as a
complete and through review and public hearing is conducted on the traffic impacts.
ACRD Staff in their recommendation to the ACRD Commissioners made the following Staff
Comments/Recommendations: "ACHD's Traffic Service and Planning Review staff has
reviewed the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant's engineer. Staff found the analysis to be
technically correct, but does not agree with the recommendation to allow the first 2 phases of the
development to use Tree Farm Way to access the site." The staff report concludes with the
following statement, "Please see Findings for consideration, V.
Mayor and Council Members
Page 3
Findings for Consideration; for brevity I will paraphrase the findings as the complete text is
included in the ACRD Staff report. District Policy 7026.3.3 any development with only one
collector street access to a public street system, the maximum forecast ADT to be allowed
at any point on that collector street is 3,000.
As the numbers above show the ADT on Tree Farm Way without the buildout of the Spin -wing
Greens Subdivision already exceeds the 3,000 trips per day in the ACRD Policy. With the
completion of building in the Spurwing Greens Subdivision and the new Tree Farm Subdivision
approximately 4,885 ADT will be using Tree Farm Way north of Chinden Way. This is totally
unacceptable. I and several hundred residents of the Spurwing Subdivision are currently
collecting signatures on petitions to be presented to the Mayor and City Council that state we are
opposed to allowing Tree Farm Subdivision to utilize Tree Farm Way as access to their project.
In addition I expect that over 100 residents will be in attendance at the Februaty 21, 2017 City
council meeting to lend our silent support and to a reasonable and responsible decision by the
City Council that recognizes the impact of traffic on existing Spurwing Subdivision.
I am asking that the City of Meridian recognize that they must first protect the citizens of the
community they are elected to serve and that they cannot, in exercise of their elected duties,
allow development of any properties that use Tree Farm Way as access until such time as final
improvements are made to Black Cat Rd. north of Chinden Ave.. improvements to Black Cat
Rd. including signalization of that intersection with Chinden Ave. will provide an additional
entrance and exit to the existing Spurwing Subdivision and any new projects in the impacted
area.
For the record the majority of the residents of Spurwing Subdivision are not opposed to the Tree
Farm Subdivision development, except for the impact that any development will have on the
ADT and our ability to utilize Tree Farm Way under the conditions set forth in ACRD Policy
7026.3.3.
Respectfully submitted,
�a
Robert Neufeld
US 20/26 Corridor Study, I-84 to Eagle Road
1TD wants to
hear from you!
The US 20/26 Corridor Study
is nearly complete.
This is the last public meeting
and opportunity to comment
on the corridor study.
For more information:
• Visit our project website:
http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/
apps/us2026Corridor
Study/default.html
• Contact: Adam Rush
ITD Public Involvement
Coordinator
208.334.8119
adam.rush@itd.idaho.gov
�pRHp
Idaho Transportation Department
a P.O. Box 8028
sA tis Boise, ID 83707-2028
o rp
�r�oH nuc
73 G' � �'�
Presort Std
US Postage paid
Boise, ICS
Permit Na. 143
277**k*****kt*r**********tet*AUTOt-ALL FOR AADC 836
SOUTHAM LYNN 1-2
6408 N SALVIA WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83646-481CI
Tuesday, March 7
4to7pm
The Ambrose School
6100 N Locust Grove Rd.
Meridian, ID 83646
Thursday, March 9
4 to 7 pm
Thomas Jefferson
Charter School
1309 Adam Smith Ave.
Caldwell, ID 83605
WEST WEST IMOF
012621t',%
OlLta�40(o(4
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)
has developed an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for US 20/26, from 1-84 in Caldwell to Eagle
Road. The EA includes recommended roadway
improvements and right-of-way needs for the
corridor between now and 2040. ITD will hold
two public hearings on the US 20/26 Corridor
Study project. The public hearings will be an open
house format, providing an opportunity for you to
learn about the project, ask questions from ITD
staff, and provide comments. The public hearings
will be from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Those interested are
invited to stop by any time between those hours.
ITD wants to hear from you! The US 20/28
Corridor Study is nearly complete. This is the
last public meeting and opportunity to
comment on the corridor study.
ITD invites you to review and comment on the
Environmental Assessment for the US 20/26
Corridor Study. The Environmental Assessment
document is available for public review online
at http://apps.itd.idaho.gov /apps/
us2026CorridorStudy/default.htmi. In
addition, the website will list locations where
hard copies of the EA can be reviewed. The
public comment deadline is March 31, 2017.
Comments can be submitted and formal testimony can be recorded
regarding the assessment at two open -house style public hearings:
Tuesday, March 7
4to7pm
The Ambrose School
6100 N Locust Grove Rd.
Meridian, ID 83646
Thursday, Mauch 9
4to7pm
Thomas Jefferson Charter School
1209 Adam Smith Ave.
Caldwell, ID 83605
The public hearings are identical and have been scheduled at two locations along the corridor for your convenience.
We hope you can attend' However, if you cannot, ITD Public involvement Coordinator
please send your comments to this address no PO Box 7129, Boise, ID 83703-9933
later than March 31, 2017: adam.rush@itd.idaho.gov
Persons needing an interpreter or special accommodations are urged to contact (208) 3348118
TTY/TDD Users. Dial 711 or (800) 3773529 to use Idaho Relay System.
Se fes recomienda a las personas que necesiten un intftrete o arreglos especiales que 11amen al coordinador de participad&
publico al (208) 3348119. Usuarios de TTY/TDD: Marque 7110 (800) 377-3329 para usar el sistema de rete de Idaho.
MERIDIAN CITY CODE
1-7-10: PROCEDURE FOR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:
A. Pursuant to Idaho Code 67-6535 (local land use planning act) regarding a request for
reconsideration of a city council land use decision the following procedure must be strictly
followed:
1. After final approval of the findings of facts, conclusions of law, decision, and order, the appellant,
who may be any applicant or affected person, as defined by Idaho Code, may request
reconsideration of the final decision of the city council.
2. Such request must be in writing and filed with the city clerk within fourteen (14) days of the final
approval.
3. The request must identify specific deficiencies in the decision for which reconsideration is sought.
4. If the request is properly filed and meets the requirement of identifying specific deficiencies in the
land use decision, the city council shall schedule the matter to be heard at a regularly scheduled
meeting of the city council.
5. Notice will be provided to appellant when the request will be scheduled to be considered.
6. No additional evidence or testimony will be allowed at the city council meeting.
7. At the city council meeting, the council shall consider the written request and may affirm, reverse, or
modify its decision, after compliance with the applicable procedural standards.
8. If necessary, the council may direct a new public hearing and all the procedures and notices that are
necessary will be done prior to a new public hearing.
9. A written decision shall be provided to the appellant within sixty (60) days of the request. (Ord. 16-
1685, 4-26-2016)
TITLE 67
STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 65
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING
67-6535. APPROVAL OR DENIAL O F ANY APPLICATION TO BE BASED UPON
EXPRESS STANDARDS AN D TO BE IN WRITING. (1) The approval or denial of any application
required or authorized pursuant to this chapter shall be based upon standards and criteria which
shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or
regulation of the city or county. Such approval standards and criteria shall be set forth in express
terms in land use ordinances in order that permit applicants, interested residents and decision
makers alike may know the ex press standards that must be met in order to obtain a requested permit
or approval. Whenever the nature of any decision standard or criterion allows, the decision shall
identify aspects of compliance or noncompliance with relevant approval standards and cr iteria in the
written decision.
(2) The approval or denial of any application required or authorized pursuant to this chapter
shall be in writing and accompanied by a reasoned statement that explains the criteria and standards
considered relevant, states the relevant contested facts relied upon, and explains the rationale for the
decision based on the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, relevant ordinance and
statutory provisions, pertinent constitutional principles and factual information con tained in the
record.
(a) Failure to identify the nature of compliance or noncompliance with express approval standards
or failure to explain compliance or noncompliance with relevant decision criteria shall be grounds
for invalidation of an approved perm it or site -specific authorization, or denial of same, on appeal.
(b) Any applicant or affected person seeking judicial review of compliance with the provisions of
this section must first seek reconsideration of the final decision within fourteen (14) days . Such
written request must identify specific deficiencies in the decision for which reconsideration is
sought. Upon reconsideration, the decision may be affirmed, reversed or modified after compliance
with applicable procedural standards. A written decisi on shall be provided to the applicant or
affected person within sixty (60) days of receipt of the request for reconsideration or the request is
deemed denied. A decision shall not be deemed final for purposes of judicial review unless the
process required in this subsection has been followed. The twenty -eight (28) day time frame for
seeking judicial review is tolled until the date of the written decision regarding reconsideration or
the expiration of the sixty (60) day reconsideration period, whichever occu rs first .
(3) It is the intent of the legislature that decisions made pursuant to this chapter should be
founded upon sound reason and practical application of recognized principles of law. In reviewing
such decisions, the courts of the state are directed to consider the proceedings as a whole and to
evaluate the adequacy of procedures and resultant decisions in light of practical considerations with
an emphasis on fundamental fairness and the essentials of reasoned decision making. Only those
whose challe nge to a decision demonstrates actual harm or violation of fundamental rights, not the
mere possibility thereof, shall be entitled to a remedy or reversal of a decision. Every final decision
rendered concerning a site -specific land use request shall provid e or be accompanied by notice to
the applicant regarding the applicant’s right to request a regulatory taking analysis pursuant to
section 67-8003, Idaho Code. An applicant denied an application or aggrieved by a final decision
concerning matters identified in section 67-6521(1)(a), Idaho Code, may, within twenty -eight (28)
days after all remedies have been exhausted under local ordinance, seek judicial review under the
procedures provided by chapter 52, title 67 , Idaho Code. An appeal shal l be from the final decision
and not limited to issues raised in the request for reconsideration.