HomeMy WebLinkAboutHightowerJericho.Sue Sullivan C
[if !mso]> <STYLE> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </STYLE> <![endif]
[if !mso]> <STYLE> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } </STYLE> <![endif] From: Anna Canning
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:50 PM
To: Will Berg; Sharon Smith; Tara Green
Subject: FW: Hightower/Jericho
For Hightower Hearing
Anna Borchers Canning, AICP
City of Meridian Planning Director
From: Sue Sullivan [mailto:Sue.Sullivan@itd.idaho.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:24 AM
To: Anna Canning; Steve Siddoway
Cc: Phil Hull; C. Caleb Hood; Lori Den Hartog; Kevin Sablan
Subject: RE: Hightower/Jericho
Yes, the new access point is as planned, approx. at the half mile, and is supported whether Jericho is closed or not.
Sue
From: Anna Canning [mailto:canninga@meridiancity.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:19 AM
To: Steve Siddoway; Sue SullivanCc: Phil Hull; C. Caleb Hood; Lori Den Hartog; Kevin SablanSubject: RE: Hightower/Jericho
First of all, thanks to you all for meeting to resolve this issue. I approve of the suggested approach. I think it is important that Kevin and/or Sue can state that the new access
point is supported regardless of whether Jericho is closed or not.
Anna
Anna Borchers Canning, AICP
City of Meridian Planning Director
From: Steve Siddoway
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 5:22 PM
To: Sue SullivanCc: Anna Canning; Phil Hull; Craig Hood (hoodc@meridiancity.org); Lori Den Hartog; Kevin SablanSubject: Hightower/Jericho
Sue,
Here is my summary of today’s discussion at ITD regarding Hightower:
Do not condition the Variance. Recommend approval of the Variance “as is.”
Request that as part of the annexation, a condition be added to the Development Agreement (DA) that:
The owner consents to the vacation of Jericho Road.
The owner shall submit an application for Vacation or Exchange of Right-of-way for Jericho Road to the City of Meridian and to the Ada County Highway District (ACHD)
prior to or concurrent with submittal of a final plat application.
[Note: approval of the plat is not intended to be conditioned on approval of the vacation, this is only a mechanism to require submittal of the application to formalize the discussion
and meet ITD’s request for the City and ACHD to consider the vacation of Jericho Road’s access to US 20-26. The new access point is supported regardless of whether Jericho is
closed in the end or not. The final plat should be able to proceed through the hearings process independently from the Vacation.] The portion of Jericho Road subject to vacation
is from US 20-26 south to the first access point along Jericho Road.
If this language meets your approval, please REPLY and state so. I believe that City Council will be most comfortable if they have something in writing from you, since this compromise
is different from the written request they currently have as part of the record.
Also, Anna would also like a sentence or two stating that you and Kevin have spoken and clarified that the actual right-of-way request is for 70 feet, not 100 feet. It is currently
confusing to Council because they have separate written requests for each and they want verification that the loop has been closed on this issue, as well.
If you have any questions, please give me a call. 884-5533.
Steve