The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCommentsPage 1 of 1 *.01 Tara Green From: C. Caleb Hood Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:02 PM To: Tara Green; Machelle Hill; Sharon Smith; Will Berg; Bill Nary; Ted Baird Cc: Sonya Watters; Anna Canning Subject: FW: Stokesberry Importance: High Please see the applicant's request below regarding AP-07-007. This item is on the City Council agenda for tonight. Caleb From: Daren Fluke [mailto:DFluke@jub.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:58 AM To: C. Caleb Hood; Nancy Radford Cc: Ann Faltin; Matthew Rhees; Martin Melander; Glenn Walker Subject: Stokesberry Caleb, thank you for working with us on the Stokesberry CU modification. Because the setback issues have been resolved through the modification process, it is no longer necessary for us to pursue the appeal application scheduled for this evening's public hearing before the council. Accordingly, this email will serve as the formal withdrawal of appeal application AP 07-007. Please call if you have questions or need more information regarding this matter. Thanks, D IDaren Fluke, .icy J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. 250 S. Beechwood Ave. Boise, ID 83709 (208) 376-7330 (208) 323-9336 - Fax (208) 869-3903 - Cell www.jub.com 8/28/2007 22 August 2007 City of Meridian City Clerk's Office William G. Berg Jr. 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 GEIVEL AUG 2 t 20-07 City of Meridian RE: AP 07-007/Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 City Clerk Office Dear Will: All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Stokesberry Lateral courses through this proposed project. The District's easement for the Stokesberry Lateral at this location is a minimum of forty feet (40'), twenty feet (20') to each side of the centerline. However please contact the District directly to verify the width of easement necessary to operate, maintain and repair the Stokesberry Lateral. Also, please send revised plans showing exactly what proposed encroachments will be within the District's easement and exactly how far. This easement must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Sincerely, Bill Henson Asst. Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District BH/dbg C: File - Office/Shop APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000 Page 1 of 1 Tara Green From: Sonya Watters Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 8:24 AM To: Tara Green; Machelle Hill; Sharon Smith Subject: FW: Stokesberry Appeal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Yellow Attachments: appeal Itr 7-31-07.pdf I sent over an appeal application yesterday for Stokesberry.... please replace the narrative letter that was in the application with the attached one. Thx! From: Daren Fluke [mailto:DFluke@jub.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 8:06 AM To: Sonya Watters Subject: RE: Stokesberry Appeal Here you go. sorry for the confusion, please let me know if you need anything else. will you also confirm the hearing date for me? thanks, D From: Sonya Watters[mailto:watterss@meridiancity.org] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:44 PM To: Daren Fluke Subject: Stokesberry Appeal Daren, Can you please revise your narrative submitted with the Appeal application to reflect the following: * Appeal of decision for Lot 10 (I've attached a copy of the denial letter for Lot 10) * Exclude Lot 12 from your request (An Appeal was already filed for Lot 12, so you don't need to include that lot in your request.) Thanks, Sovl,�R Watters Assoc ate cCt� PLPvLvuer clT'( OF MERIDL4N C-60 E. Watertower street, SkLte 202 Mer%oiiav,,, Iciako RS042 208.884.�533 _PkO ne ~ 202-222.OR54 Fax 8/3/2007 J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. f'J u B) ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS Regional Office 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 July 31, 2007 208-376-7330 Fax: 208-323-9336 www.jub.com City Council City of Meridian 660 E. Watertower Lane, Ste. 202 Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Stokesberry Subdivision No.2 - Appeal Members of the Council: On behalf of Properties West Inc. and the landowners within Stokesberry Subdivision, please accept this appeal application of the staff decision detailed in a letter dated July 24, 2007 from Anna Canning to Mathew Rhees. The aforementioned decision only addresses Lot 10, but it will create a precedent that affects three lots within the development. We are therefore requesting that the decision of the Director to apply a 20' rear setback to all lots within Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 be overturned and that Lots 10, 11, and 13 be allowed to develop with buildings as depicted on the final plat of Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2. Properties West developed the Stokesberry Subdivision and subsequently sold the lots within the project to various individuals and companies to develop with office buildings. The lots were sold with the understanding that building envelopes were designated on the plat, represented by dashed lines on each lot. As you can see from the staff decision referenced above, this concept was not fully realized within the record and the staff feels that they have no option to approve a site plan with anything less than a 20' rear setback. While we recognize that the staff analysis is technically correct, and while we appreciate the predicament they find themselves in, we believe that there are good and compelling reasons for issuing the last three building permits within this project utilizing a 10' rear setback. Specifically: The adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law specifically reference the Building Site Plan drawing (attached) that graphically depicts a building envelope for each lot within the project. It is clear from this drawing that the development concept for the project has always been to treat the development as an integrated collection of buildings on a large parcel of land. Lots were created due to the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the need to sell the ground to individual buyers, but the above drawing clearly shows the overall development concept, a fact borne out by the issuance of at least three building permits with 10' rear setbacks. Building permits have been issued on other lots with the ten foot setback. While point alone is not a good enough reason to issues others with the same error, it dothis verify that the record is unclear at best. Further, it demonstrates that the 10' setb ack N Engineers Surveyors Planners Appeal Narrative Stokesberry Subdivision No.2 July 31, 2007 Page 2 is at least somewhat supported by the record, is perfectly reasonable within the context of the project, and does not create a public nuisance nor a harmful precedent for the city. Nothing is gained by the city, but much is lost by the applicant with this action. The lots were sold and bought in good faith by both parties based upon the recorded plat and the Building Site Plan. Further, the appellant understood that previous permits had been issued and was under the understandable impression that the entire project could be developed in accordance with the Building Site Plan as referenced in the Findings of Fact. Denying building permits at this stage has already delayed one project and will certainly kill the project if it is upheld. Furthermore, it will likely result in litigation between the buyers and the seller, causing financial harm to both parties. If this were of benefit to the City or its citizens it might be justifiable, but this action will result in no substantial benefit to anyone, it only harms the landowners and the appellant. The concept of a rear setback has little or no meaning in the context of this project. All lots are clustered around an internal shared parking area and do not have traditional public road frontage with front, rear, and side setbacks. The individual site plans work well within the context of the project and create a cohesive and attractive development as designed. y The mandatory 20' rear setback will likely be changed anyway. The staff has indicated that a 20' setback in the L-0 zone is excessive given the purpose of the zone and intends to bring forward an ordinance amendment to modify the setback requirement. Unfortunately this process will take approximately six months and is of no real benefit to the landowners who are ready to go now and will likely lose their financing if forced to wait that long for a resolution to this issue. Summary The Council clearly has the authority to offer relief in this case. Although the record on this issue is somewhat muddled, the mere fact that the Findings of Fact reference the Buildin Site Plan is justification enough to allow 10' rear setback and would be defensible in court. g Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that the issue would ever go to court because it does not harm anyone, to the contrary it results in a much nicer and more cohesive development. Based on all the above, we respectfully request that the Council uphold the appeal and allow the owners to develop the project as it was originally envisioned. Sincerely, J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. Fi Daren Fluke, AICP Senior Planner F:\ProlectManagers\GAL\11927 - Stokesberry 2\11927_Admin\appeal ltr 7.31-07.doc N IDAI110 Planning Department CITY COUNCIL REVIEW ■ Application Checklist All applications are required to contain one copy of the following: Applicant Description Staff Completed & signed Commission & Council Review Application Narrative fully describing the proposed request, including but not limited to the following: ➢ Address who the affected party is and how they are affected ➢ Describe the decision that is requested to be reviewed by City Council ➢ Include file numbers of any and all applications that are relevant to this request ➢ Any information that supports this request ✓ Scaled vicinity man qhnwing the location of the subject property Or I Fee All requests for City Council review of the Director's decision or Commission action must be filed within 15 days of the date of the letter issued by the Administrator of the decision. THIS APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE (NOR WILL A PUBLIC HEARING BE SET) UNTIL STAFF HAS RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION. RECEIVED MUG 0 2 2007 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 111, Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.org (Rev. 9121106)