Request for Reconsideration
Susan Wildwood, Chartered
Attorney-AI-Law
Post Office Box 6502
Boise, Idaho 83707
Office: (208) 383-0390
Fax: (208) 343-3756
October 12,2006
,
~RJECEI"I~D;
DC T ~_) 2006:
City Council- City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642-2300
~~..,;'1 t ~/ (if IVJ~0~1-~.ldjarl
".. .~ +: \ ;:~.: 1.? T' 'k ()ffll,': e
RE: Request for Reconsideration: Proposed Northborough Subdivision
AZ06-030 Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8
(Medium Density Residential
PP-06-030 Preliminary Plat approval of 35 single-family residential building lots and 4
common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone, by Gemstar Development, LLC
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I represent Gemstar Development, LLC with regard to the above-referenced application. I
was not available to attend the hearing on this matter, held on October 3, 2006. At that
hearing, the City Council denied the applications, according to the minutes, because of
concerns regarding:
1. Piping or tiling the White Drain, or its use as an amenity.
2. Access for the neighboring property owner, Mr. Steve Lloyd.
3. Master planning for vicinity.
My client is requesting that the City Council reconsider this denial based on the following
information that would constitute at least in part, new information that was not presented to
the City Council and was not available at the October 3, 2006 hearing.
1. White Drain: The Staff Report states that the Meridian Uniform Development Code,
Section 11-3A-6 requires that all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of any
natural waterway, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be
covered. However, this is not a complete statement of the relevant provisions.
a. Section 11-3A-6 actually provides:
11-3A-6: DITCHES, LATERALS, CANALS OR DRAINAGE COURSES:
A. Piping:
1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area
being developed shall remain as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or
otherwise covered. See also subsection Bl of this section.
2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, and drains may be left open when
,October 12, 2006
Page 2
used as a water amenity or linear open space. See also subsection B2 of this
section.
3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals or
canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be
piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property
with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located
on an adjoining property.
a. The city council may waive the requirement for covering such
ditch, lateral, canal, or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such
will not be served and public safety can be preserved.
b. The city council may also waive this requirement for large
capacity facilities.
B. Fencing:
1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the
waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger
open water systems may require fencing as determined by the city council,
director and/or public works director.
2. Ditches, laterals, canals, and drains do not require fencing if it can
be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said
ditch, lateral, canal, or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the
development, to be a water amenity. Construction drawings and relevant
calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the
state of Idaho shall be submitted to both the director and the authorized
representative of the water facility for approval.
3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals,
canals, and drains shall be fenced with a chainlink fence at least six feet (6') in
height and having an ll-gauge, two inch (2") mesh or other construction,
equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal or drain, which
fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said
lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch,
lateral, canal, or drain.
c. Impeding Movement Of Water Prohibited: For any irrigation or drainage
ditch not within the jurisdiction of an irrigation or drainage district, piping
shall not impede the movement of the amount of water crossing the property
prior to development or the amount of water delivered to downstream
properties.
D. Natural Drainage Courses: All natural drainage courses shall be left
undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and
. October 12, 2006
Page 3
ease of maintenance of the channel. Relocation of natural swales is acceptable
if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "natural
drainage course" shall not be deemed to apply to minor swales and
depressions that are located entirely on the applicant's property and which
serve a relatively small area where runoff is infrequent. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-
2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
b. We have proposed to utilize the White Drain as a waterway amenity under all
three of the provisions pertaining to ditches and waterways. First, the Drain is not located
wholly on our property. Second, it is a natural water with water contained in it year around.
Third, we are proposing it both as a waterway and a lineal amenity and can preserve the
public safety by fencing off the easement area that allows cleaning of the Drain or access by
other landowners that utilize the Drain for irrigation or drainage.
c. The White Drain does not intersect, cross or lie within the subject property.
The White Drain forms one of the property boundaries. However, the property boundary is
only to the centerline of the White Drain. Therefore, we cannot pipe or tile it because it is
located at least halfway on property that we do not own or control. We did not have
confirmation at the meeting that the actual property line is the centerline of the drain.
d. We have proposed to utilize an open wrought iron fence that will preserve not
only the public safety, but allow for easy access to those with the right to use the easement
area.
e. We are willing to put a walking path along, but outside of the easement area
that would allow children to walk north toward the school when the Lloyd property is
developed. Mr. Lloyd is interested in providing connectivity to the school along that portion
of the Drain located within his property providing appropriate agreements can be
accomplished with both the School and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District or any interested
users of the Drain. Please see the letter agreement between Gemstar Properties, LLC and Mr.
Steve Lloyd, dated October 9, 2006, attached as Exhibit 1 (Letter Agreement). This
information was not available at the October 3, 2006 meeting. We respectfully suggest that it
is Dew information that would support reconsideration of the denial of the application.
2. Access to Steve Lloyd Property: Although my client had indicated that it would
guarantee access to the Lloyd property, it seemed that the City Council wanted something
more concrete. The first paragraph of the Letter Agreement sets forth our commitment to
provide a temporary road along the western boundary of the proposed Northborough
Subdivision, to remain in place until the permanent, paved and public road is completed. This
latter public road will provide access through the Northborough Subdivision for Mr. Lloyd's
property. The agreement is assurance to both Mr. Lloyd and to the City that this access shall
remain in place. Please see Letter Agreement.
This is new information not available at the time of the October 3, 2006 hearing and we
respectfully suggest that it would justify reconsideration of the decision made at that time.
3. Master Planning for Vicinity: There was some discussion among the Council members
, October 12, 2006
Page 4
regarding what would be planned for this area. There is significant information based on not
only the existing Future Land Use Map and Existing Zoning Map, but also with actions taken
by the City Council at its meeting on October 10, 2006, approving an amendment to the
comprehensive plan map to designate the remaining corners of the intersection of Ustick and
Linder Road as Mixed Use development areas.
a. The City completed a review of and amendment to the City's comprehensive
plan that specifically addressed land uses in this vicinity. According to the new Future Land
Use Map, the two properties on the northeast and northwest corners of the intersection of
Linder and Ustick Roads are designed as Mixed Use. This generally implies higher density
residential and either or both commercial, office development. The property that is on the
northeast corDer is adjacent to the proposed Northborough Subdivision. It is apparently
owned by the same person owning the property on the northwest corner of the intersection,
making both properties eligible for annexation because of contiguity to the City limits on the
western boundary of the northwest property. Any such development would require sidewalks
along both Linder Road along the northeast property's west boundary, but also along Ustick
Road from the Linder Road intersection to connect directly to the sidewalk to be constructed
along Ustick for the proposed Northborough Subdivision. Therefore, the only area that would
be lacking sidewalks in the potential near future to take children from Northborough
Subdivision to the school would be along the parcel owned by Mr. Vogel who is not selling or
developing his property.
b. As noted above, and contained in the minutes of the hearing, Mr. Steve Lloyd is
contemplating future development of his property. It would take its main access through
Northborough to Ustick Road. He has also agreed to make the effort to see if he can negotiate
a successful approach to a pathway connection with both the School and N ampa Meridian
Irrigation connecting to the walking path that is proposed by my client through
Northborough. Therefore, the only property Owner with land north of Ustick Road and
between Linder Road and the White Drain that has not indicated development plans, is Mr.
Vogel who testified at the hearing.
c. The City Council approved a comprehensive Plan ameDdment on October 10,
2006 in Case CPA 06-002, an application by Mr. and Mrs. Wilford Sindon to change the
comprehensive plan map designation of two parcels they own on the southwest and southeast
corners of the intersection of Linder and Ustick Roads, from Medium Density Residential to
Mixed Use Community. To illustrate their intended future development, they submitted two
concept plans for the respective parcels. These concept plans were attached to the Staff
Report as Exhibits and are attached here as Exhibits 2 and 3 respectively.
The southeast corner property is separated from the Southwick Subdivision
approved for annexation by the City Council on August 22, 2006, by only two long narrow
properties. Please see map attached as Exhibit 4. These properties are currently shown as
Medium Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
Therefore, these two properties are the only properties on the south side of Ustick between
Southwick and the intersection of Linder and Ustick Roads that do not have a development
plan or proposal in place.
, October 12, 2006
Page 5
d. As noted by the City Council members, it is not possible for my client to
anticipate future development in this area. However, the information provided above, when
taken as a totality, illustrates that there are only three properties, Vogel's to the northwest of
Northborough, and the two parcels south of Ustick adjacent to Southwick, that have no
indication of any development plans. The rest of the property owners have indicated their
development intentions, by either amending the comprehensive plan map or testimony before
the City Council. We respectfully suggest that it would be appropriate to reconsider the
denial of the N orthborough application given this new presentation of information, as well as
the newly approved comprehensive plan map designation for Mr. and Mrs. Sindon in Case
CPA 06-002.
CONCLUSION:
My client respectfully suggests that there is sufficient new information, as well as presentation
of disparate information that has been put together in a more cohesive approach that would
both justify a reconsideration of the denial of this application. We request that the City
Council reconsider the denial and allow us the opportunity to more fully present this material,
including exhibits and large scale maps in a new hearing. Thank you in advance for your
consideration of this material and request.
Very truly yours,
(j)/lhian ~1idwo<Jd
Susan Wildwood
cc: Client(s); file
October 9th, 2006
Steve Lloyd
1371 West Ustick
Meridian, Idaho
Re: The proposed Northborough Subdivision
Steve,
As discussed, Gemstar Properties will ensure that you have uninterrupted access to your home
and property during the construction of the Northborough Subdivision upon approval form
Meridian City. A temporary road will be established along the We!.'tem boundary of the
Northborough Subdivision property and will remain in place until the permanent road is
completed.
Gemstar will also construct a walking path along the White Drain, outside of the 30' easement
that will stub to your property. You have stated that when your property is developed you would
be willing to pursue talks with the Drainage Dist. to provide a pathway within their 30' easement
for the purposes of pathway cOlll1ectivity to the School North of your property provided the
School supported this access point.
Furthermore, Gemstar properties will sale the rights to the survey that was conducted on your
property for the amount that was paid. Gemstar will not be held accountable for the accuracy of
this survey.
Thank you
er
Date /0/9/0(,
Date It';; /0 ~
Steve Lloyd
EXH\Bit 1.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 10, 2006.
A. Drawings
1. Conceptual Development Plan 1515 W. U stick Road
[I
SU."ECT TO A~F"'T WlTN tlIAMPAlMElUDIAN IIUUGATION DISTRICT
A- 1
W. USTICK ROAD
., -
-- - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - --
I
~ ( DETACIf;D SlIl!;WAUC,
I
I
! I
,I
: I
i I
: I
I
, I
ell
<, I
o
0:::1
o:::i I
w'
ell
5'
. ~ I
z.
I
I
! I
I
I I
I I
! I
, I
1
I
i I
! I
I I
j t
I
=
]
~COMMERtIAL 0
:;: APPROXIMA TEL Y
roe.24 ACRES ,~,
. ""'E RACl<S
~
@
=
CSH&\
architects · engineers · planners
C W Moore P ala' 250 5 5t~. BOI~. 10 B3702
IIIATl-r....1l T: J.8D ACRES
~~....u~~,~~"Ct. ~ \:W...,.,
~=:: ::~ilr.o, ~.:':::c"T
PAllKINC PROVlDm: ,ce $PACES
50.700 s,r.
, 'iPACE./200 s,r.
254 SPACES
288 SPACEs
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
o 100 200
300
FEET
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 10,2006.
2. 3195 N. Linder Road after ACHD Right of Way Take
l1Jil:I.J.""'''''.b'. OLIlVER _:.........""._,
CDNlNlERCIAL REAL ES....ATE
E~,"en6e "Re,,/h.
.) J. 1 C J; L.i\. 1.'1
) "
"""-
\
\
'\
\
\,
\
,
\
\
\
\
'I
,t
250 S. fIrTH STREIOT . DOISE. IDAHO. 208378A600 . WWWTOKRLCOM
A-2
EXHIBIT
\
:5
2r~3 Preliminary Plats
Environmental Data
l:~"'. Hydro Areas
Parcels
D
D
'. Ada County City Limits
DA COUNTY
BOISE
EAGLE
:!'tY:rlJ. GARDEN CITY
KUNA
MERIDIAN
STAR
~ 1000ooII """""I
2,000 0
SCALE 1 : 27,171
N
I I
2,000 4,000
FEET
I
6,000
A
, \0.-
lID. tLl Ii ~ c::~ i n-~~Wl ffi
~ -~~ "~flE~,j1iF[ . ~
., r--rc:::=::J 1- .
-l
h -r
1""=
b----,
Hili
'" L.j TTTT
L
--"
~""-
--1= h ==--
\ \ TT
In
~ P=~N
21 L
~
-
---'
11~
---. " ~
<.::1 ~
I
1'1
..
p
111 ~
UJ l-r
rll I
t::iL I
~n
"rr~ rir
~
_ ~ c- l
~~[ !
~'ii i~~ .
~~" ~1 t ~D. ,'~'
~LL ~ ~ ~ ~~ I ~) ~
----r-- . I I ~ I -c--.
~ ~~ r I'Y-'~~
~ ~,-h~ II I \-t: ~ ~
~) il~ ~b '-- -u o'e-~ ~ 'i~' ~
,,--f-----.-. \\1.- I v- ~
-=;'" --.'"' ~ Ai. ^ 'S
~.I ",-" "" h
._::~ ~~" ~,~ "'$:; -x1
,~._^.,_.."',.<~^_ J-h 0 = I I I 1ftd~~ ~ i I
~ n d ~ rl - ~ful
-v
T I
:---- -
>-I '
r: -~
"5
,... "I I
City of Meridian
Zoning
Jl
5<]II<mII<r~ll(!o
'"
o
I
~ ..
!Io.
..
,
I
T -.
U ~,---]'
g"~tD.ID '
~C~[lJ..'..L JT_D' ::;c=: jU1rrL.
n11TT" fPJ a m
III ~ ,L
-, , i
..
...
.,.
b
I
,- I
.' -]
"
~__ .. m
~ ~ "1 H- JIf-
u h ~
'"" . . F- f\ c-t---::-r 111 I' J
l f--'~ ~ It LJ
~ liR ~ h= h~ll r~
~ LJr-rhT -l~ I \LL ~ II
[ ~ h~ ',~
L-.. r:r:~ t:
.~
EXMtBIT.
5