HomeMy WebLinkAboutCitizen CommentsSeptember 25, 2004
The Honorable Mayor Tammy de Weerd
And the Honorable Members of the Meridian City Council
C/o the City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: Leeshire Subdivision Denial
Dear Mayor deWeerd and members of the council:
As citizens we are writing in response to a message we were emailed regarding a letter to you from a lawyer for
Leeshire Subdivision which requests reconsideration of their permit denial by the city council.
Apparently they have contacted a city council member who they report they believe will likely bring this up for
a possible motion at the next council meeting. We are unsure as to why this would be done, seeing that the
minutes and final decision from the council meeting denying the subdivision permit have not yet even been
produced.
Interestingly, because the city actually has no available process for "reconsideration", the lawyer cites that the
city should follow "Roberts Rules of Order". Although we are not lawyers, but lay citizens, we did inquire as
to what these were. In fact, these "rules of order" suggest that a "reconsideration" is a serious item, and should
not be taken lightly, but appears to be something that should only occur under rare circumstances. It also
mentions that any "reconsideration" proposed can only be made on the same day as the original vote or on the
succeeding business day and certainly not after. The city council denied this permit many weeks ago. We
assume that this "rule" for "reconsideration" is only to be even suggested if the governing body quickly realizes
they have made an error, or a voting member realizes something important has not been considered, but not as a
back -door process to replace something back onto an agenda.
The lawyer also suggests that the city has not provided any explanation for the reasons for denial. She also
states, after quoting Idaho code, that "none of the above" were considered in the decision. This certainly is not
the case since we recall there were extensive discussions about these reasons at the city council meeting on
Sept. 7, 2004. These included the incompatibility of office and commercial space with the residential
evironment along that section of Locust Grove Road and the incredibly high density of development requested
by the developer.
Maybe this lawyer wasn't present to hear the reasons, but she asserts they weren't even addressed at all. In
answer to her statement, the meeting minutes will be available to her when they become available to the public.
In addition, we understand that a "planned unit development (PUD)" with its potential conditional use permits
are completely at the discretion of the council and may not even require detailed reasons other than it did not fit
the master plan for city growth.
It seems as though the lawyer is opposing the city council's decision before there is even a written declaration
of the decision itself, suggesting that there is no decision the council could possibly write that would be
satisfactory to the lawyer for the developer.
The lawyer also asks what they would need to do to be in compliance, and the answer is really quite simple, and
that is to follow the master city plan. A benefit to a developer who puts forth a PUD application is flexibility in
what can be put in a proposed development, but this benefit comes with the risk that the City correspondingly
has broader discretion in determining that a PUD application does not fit with the comprehensive plan, zoning
ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the City. It is not the City's place to write a PUD to
meet the needs of the developer; it is the developer's place to write a PUD that conforms to the City's needs.
Additionally, the local subdivisions have been willing to meet with the developer to discuss openly our
concerns, the city plan, and a potential new proposal. Although, after the council's denial on Sept. 7th, the
developer made an initial contact to set up this meeting with the neighbors, they have quickly backtracked,
decided not to meet with neighbors, and pursued this "legal" route first. The direct approach to a member of the
city council and request for reconsideration underlines their unwillingness to work with the neighbors. They
seem determined to force their plan through despite the fact that many local citizens oppose it, it does not fit the
master plan, and the city council has already denied it.
We would ask that this subdivision not be allowed for "reconsideration" on the above grounds. To us this
appears to be an attempt to use a "back -door" approach to subvert the public voice on this matter. It would be a
burden to the local neighbors to "reconsider" this subdivision when we have already tried to put forth our voice
in this matter and have to re -group and take the extensive time necessary to prepare for additional public
hearings on the same matter. Although the developer has funds to pay a lawyer and a vested financial interest
to pursue this, it places an unreasonable burden on us as ordinary citizens, to force us to respond anew to each
approach the developer puts forth. Requiring such vigilance on the part of a diverse group of interested
members of the public is very challenging and time consuming and is unfair. The developer's request for
reconsideration offers nothing that could not have properly been placed before the council on September 7, at
the time PUBLIC NOTICE was given for a full and final hearing on this matter.
We suggest a better course would be to allow the developer to actually make a good faith effort to work with
the local neighborhood associations in conjunction with a proposal that addresses the concerns of the city
council meeting and which actually fits the master plan as written. The developer should be willing to do this
since his lawyer writes that he "would welcome the opportunity to make necessary modifications to the plat."
We thank the council for its fair representation of the citizens of Meridian, and its willingness to listen to
neighbor's concerns.
Sincerely,
1 ��O � Ac
57YO A/- LOu _ GrbtlP— , *4,"
5�(O� c4fo, Ave, fi mt",df4�,-
kit& Tz ���
VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. Mail
November 8, 2004
JOANN C. BUTLER
M. GREGORY EMBREY
LAUREN MAIERS REYNOLDSON
MICHAEL T. SPINK
(208) 388-1093
18 UTLERgQ S S-ATTORN EYS.COM
RECEMED
NOV
MAYORS OFFICE
Mayor Tammy de Weerd CFTF OF MRWU 1i
City Council -
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Leeshire Subdivision, AZ 04-017, PP 04-024, CUP 04-026
Dear Mayor de Weerd:
This letter constitutes a request for reconsideration/clarification of the verbal decision made b
the Meridian City Council on September 7, 2004, and the written decision y
2004, with respect to the matter referenced above. Through discussions with the CityO'scat oerne2,
it has become clear that our request for reconsideration (made on September 28, 2004 y
premature because the final decision had yet to be made. )was
It is very likely that all parties would benefit from a clear statement of the decision
Council. Because the decision of the Council was not thoroughly discussed, the basis forth
Citydel
of the application is unclear. According to Idaho Code 67-6519: ma
4. Whenever a governing board or zoning or planning and zoning
commission grants or denies a permit, it shall specify:
(a) The ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application;
(b) The reasons for approval or denial; and
(c) The actions, if any that the applicant could take to obtain a permit.
251 E. FRONT STREET
SUITE 200
P.O. BOX 639
BOISE, IDAHO 83701
208-388-1000
208-388-tool (F)
W W W-SB-ATTORNEYS.COM
November 8, 2004
Page 2
In the Council's public hearing for Leeshire Subdivision many issues were discussed, however,
the statutory direction above does not appear to have been met. The developer is ove
seeking
erection on design element modifications in order to obtain project approval.
Respectfully, we ask the Council to reconsider its decision and: (1) approve Leeshire
Subdivision; (2) tell the applicant what actions can be done to obtain approval; or (3) remand this
matter to the Planning &Zoning Commission for further consideration. The last action may be
the most appropriate. The Planning & Zoning Commission did advise us at the Commission
hearing that if the City Council denied the application the matter would be remanded to the
Commission.
Very truly yours,
JOAnn C. Butler
JCB/gs
cc: Barry Teppola
FILED WITH: RECEIVED
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. NOV - 9 2W4
CITY CLERK City of Meridian
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO City Clerk Office
November 9, 2004
OWNER'S REQUEST FOR A REGULATORY TAKING ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, I, Grant Lee, as owner of the property consisting of 29.69 acres known as
5603 N. Locust Grove Rd., Meridian, Idaho 83642, request a regulatory taking analysis concerning the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order of Denial concerning:
l . Case No. AZ-04-017, The Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 Acres to R-4, L-O,
and C-N Zones for Leeshire Subdivision,
2. Case No. PP-04-024, The Request for Preliminary Plat for 89 Building Lots and 20 Common
Lots on 29.69 Acres in Proposed R-4, L-O and C-N Zones for Leeshire Subdivision, and
3. Case No. CUP-04-026, The Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Planned
Development of Single -Family Homes, Office and Commercial Uses on 29.69 Acres in a
Proposed R-4, L-O, and C-N Zones for Leeshire Subdivision.
It is my understanding that this request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within
which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
Grafit Lee
5603 N. Locust Grove Rd.
Meridian, Idaho 8364
208 850-8886
File Stamped Copies will be provided to SWI Associates, LLC; the Planning and Zoning Department;
Public Works Department; and to the City Attorney, Mr. Bill Nary.
4 '-" P 0A J) I
Rip ;�Ihlfl WITh f YHUTt
1 MUM Two UMT ca Immuelf"
"ONE 10 ,St MIO MA ;� A J
ibis A
br
j, -
0�,Fdj
Immmo Wf
;Y)A
OMNI Y&M-AgAN WonpIT'N
Ann,, WE S,M
•
now ON! 941 h AQDPII AVE
yd ox, myv�v P i AW A qn"Off
a6goym XT
:)-!'! - ::--!! y4e 01 bm" anq ud lkv 150) W"AR , s
jW41MV, Wlf-"N nab -A TH Of lqwvyA YVISKA) hrll" xWWR jah"I
VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. Mail
November 8, 2004
JOANN C. BUTLER
M. GREGORY EMBREY
LAUREN MAIERS REYNOLDSON
MICHAEL T. SPINK
(208) 388-1 093
1ElUTLER@SB-ATTORNEys.com
RECEr"D
MAYORS OFFICE
Mayor Tammy de Weerd OrTY or N)gRjj L4N
City Council
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Leeshire Subdivision, AZ 04-017, PP 04-024, CUP 04-026
Dear Mayor de Weerd:
This letter constitutes a request for reconsideration/clarification of the verbal decisio
the Meridian City Council on September 7, 2004, and the written decision made on made by
n
2004, with respect to the matter referenced above. Through discussions wih the Cit October 12,
t
it has became clear that our request for reconsideration y s attorney,
on (made on September 2
premature because the final decision had yet to be made. 8, 2004) was
It is very likely that all parties would benefit from a clear statement of the
Council. Because the decision of the Council was not thoroughly discussed, the basis for denial
of the application is unclear. According to Idaho Code 67_ decision from the City
6519:
4. Whenever a governing board or zonin or
commission grants or denies a permit, it shall specify: planning and zoning
(a) The ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application;
(b) The reasons for approval or denial; and
(c) The actions, if any that the applicant could take to obtain a permit.
251 E. FRONT STREET
SUITE 200
PO. BOX 639
BOISE, IDAHO 83701
208-388-1000
208-388-1001 (F)
WVVW. SB-ATTORNEYS. CONI
November 8, 2004
Page 2
In the Council's public hearing for Leeshire
Subdivision ohae been met.issues
were The developer seeking
the statutory direction above does notpp
direction on design element modifications in order to obtain project approval.
Respectfully, we ask the Council to reconsider its decision and: (1) approve Leeshire
Subdivision; (2) tell the applicant what actions can be done to obtain approval; or (3) remand this
matter to the Planning & Zoning Commission for further consideration. The last action may be
the most appropriate. The Planning & Zoning
ap
plication Commission
terwouldbe remanded to
advise
sCommission
the
hearing that if the City Council denied t pp1cationthe ma
Commission.
Very truly yours,
JoAnn C. Butler
JCB/gs
cc: Barry Teppola