HomeMy WebLinkAboutWill Davis - 6.51
Machelle Hill
From:Will Davis <wyowillida@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 11:23 PM
To:clerk
Subject:Goddard Creek Development H-2017-0007
Please convey these comments to the Mayor and City Council for me.
Mayor and City Council:
I was in attendance at the meeting concerning this proposal on May 23rd.
As a result of that discussion and after having given some time for
reflection and some review of the city code book concerning
developments I would like to express a couple of concerns and offer some
input into the record concerning this proposal. For the record I reside at
2371 W. Apgar Creek Drive in Meridian.
In the meeting it was stated that this proposal had been properly signed
and a notarized statement to this affect has been submitted. Section 11-5a-
6(3) of the code reads in part: "The signs shall be posted on the land being
considered along each roadway that is adjacent to the subject property
boundaries. " It seems that this would require a sign to have been placed
along Goddard Creek and Apgar Creek Lane as these roadways are also
adjacent to the property. The only sign for this project was one double
sided sign located on the property along McMillan Road.
At the planning and zoning commission meeting this proposal was turned
down by this commission. It was then brought before the city council for
further consideration. I am not aware of all of the procedures in the codes
for this action but it appears that this is outlined in section 1-7-10 of the
code. I am not certain that these steps were properly taken. I am of the
understanding that a motion was made to approve this development and
that this was then defeated by a vote of 2 for the approval and 4 against. If
there is to be a request made for reconsideration of the land use decision,
2
Paragraph A of these section states that the procedure "must be strictly
followed:" . It would seem that the council's motion to continue a public
hearing that had been closed and the matter voted on did not strictly
follow the process as outlined. Again, there are probably several other
sections in the Meridian city code and the state statutes that I am not yet
aware of that may lend more credence to the actions taken by the council
in this matter.
I am concerned that the continuance of the public hearing on this matter
under the parameters set forth in the meeting of the 23rd places the
residents and others who may have concerns with the project at a great
disadvantage. There were no parameters given to the developer as to what
to bring back to the council for consideration. In fact, the public hearing
was continued with no amendments or restrictions placed upon the
application as it has been presented to the council to date. The only
discussion was in a general sense that the housing portion of the proposal
was taken out of play. Now, the developer is asking for a continuance of
the continuance because they need more time to make a new proposal. If it
is a new proposal then it should start from the beginning and go through
public notice, public hearings before the planning and zoning commission
and etc. If it was to be the same proposal as before, minus the housing
portion, it would seem that all they would have to do is cover up the
housing drawings and say here it is. Whether they get the chance to show
their plans on the 6th or the 20th, it will be the first and only time that the
public will have an opportunity to review the plans and make comments.
This seems a little unfair to the public that the elected officials also
represent in these type of matters.
Several times in the meeting the agreement with Locsha Falls was
mentioned and the date of 2002 brought up. Comments were made about
the fact that this was 15 years ago and things have changed since then. I
would agree with those statements but would also point out that the
Comprehensive Plan was last updated and adopted by the council in
October of 2016. I am not certain how much has changed since that date
3
and at that time the intended use of the property in question was
designated as Light Office.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting it was affirmed that there was only one applicant
involved with this proposed development. In fact, the agenda for the meeting held on May 23rd
states that the applicant is Brian Porter. As the discussion was nearing an end, it was suddenly
brought to the council's attention that there were supposedly two applicants. I suppose one for the
housing and another for the proposed storage facility. However, neither of these applicant were
officially identified in the meeting. The developer of the housing units did offer testimony so his
name and address are in the record, but no one was identified and no testimony was provided
concerning the storage units. In the meeting very, very little was mentioned about the storage units.
It was like they were an afterthought and were only necessary to consume the other 7 acres of land
being developed. Now, they are to be the focal point of any further discussion. Again, I refer to
Section 1-7-10(6) & (8). 6. No additional evidence or testimony will be allowed at the city
council meeting. 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.
I had hoped to be in attendance at the meeting on the 6th but a change in my work
schedule may prevent this from happening. At this point, I urge the members of the city
council to reject this entire proposal as it has been presented. With the changes being
considered, the confusion about what will be presented as the final proposal, and the
confusion concerning what was voted upon and what was not, it seems that it would be in
the best interest of all parties if the developer was required to start all over with a new
proposal. The process could then be monitored for proper signage and notice to adjacent
property owners. If it is a good project and worthy of completion then it will stand the test
of another public hearing and consideration by the planning and zoning commission prior
to final approval by the governing body.
I am reminded of a quote that has been attributed to President Eisenhower that seems to
fit a matter such as this:"The important th ings are seldom urgent and the urgent things are
seldom important."
Respectfully submitted,
William R. Davis
2371 W. Apgar Creek Drive
Meridian, ID 83646