Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLegal Memo for Tree Farm Reconsideratiuon 4-3-17 DATE: April 3, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Nary, City Attorney RE: Tree Farm Application – Request for Reconsideration Introduction  Prior to a final hearing and decision by the City Council there can be discretionary choices to continue the public process.  Once a decision has been reached the Idaho Code (through the Local Land Use Planning Act) and the City Code (through the UDC) severely narrow the ability to step back and reconsider the final decision.  At this juncture the request must raise a legal deficiency that would require the City to re- hear the matter. A disagreement with the outcome does not rise to that level. History  The Local Land Use Planning Act and the Uniform Development Code have strict procedures that must be followed in all land use applications.  The City required neighborhood meeting with the applicant and surrounding properties. was held on November 2, 2016. The sign in sheet from the meeting has 41 signatures/names listed as being there or being represented.  The application for rezone was submitted by M3 Development on November 15th.  Vicinity Notices to properties within 300 feet of the boundaries of this application were mailed on December 8th.  The signs were posted on the property on December 26th.  The newspaper notice was published on December 19th for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on January 5, 2017.  The Commission made a recommendation to approve the project as presented.  New notices were mailed on January 13th for the City Council meeting of February 7th.  The newspaper notice was published on January 20th.  The signs were updated on January 27th all as required by City Code.  The Code requires signage along existing streets. This property currently only has one stub street to it. (N. Snow Cherry St.) Planning staff required two additional signs to assist with notice to the public. The City can only require signs be placed on the applicant’s property and not off site. All the signs were posted properly.  ACHD had their meeting on January 25th and approved the project and the Commission voted to grant the applicant’s request for a modification of policy, allowing them to use the offsite portion of Tree Farm Way to access the first two phases of the development; 91 single family building lots.  No request for reconsideration was filed in regards to that decision.  The City Council hearing was held on February 7th and the application was approved as presented.  The Findings of Facts were approved on February 21st.  The City accepted the letter dated February 16, 2017 from Lynn Southam on February 22nd as compliant with MCC 1-7-10 as a valid request for reconsideration for the Tree Farm approval. Mr. Southam filed two additional documents to supplement his request on March 3rd and March 7th. They are part of the record of this matter.  The City also received second Request for Reconsideration on March 3, 2017 from Michial and Susan Fillman that was accepted. The Fillman’s supplemented their Request on March 8th. They are part of the record of this matter.  Council Discussion of the two Requests for Reconsideration are scheduled for April 4, 2017. Issues Raised The issues that have been raised by the parties requesting reconsideration are summarized as the following:  The approval by ACHD and the City did not fully address the concerns for the residents in regards to traffic conflicts, congestion, and safety on Tree Farm Way as well as at the intersection of Chinden from the construction of the homes as well as future traffic impacting the subdivision; and  The Black Cat Road extension would address many of the concerns of the residents, but ACHD did not require that this roadway to be completed until after 90 building permits have been issued; and  The notices, both mailed as well as the signage, were inadequate to meet the spirit of the law and allow the residents of the adjoining subdivision to know that this project was moving forward. The published notices were not addressed.