Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Dave McKinnon MEMORANDUM RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2003 Date: March 6, 2003 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office To: Mayor and City Council Fm: Dave McKinnon, Planner n Re: The PodiatIy Building, 1065 Fairview Avenne (Marsball Ogden) On January 15, 2002, the Meridian City Council passed Ordinance No. 02-934, approving the annexation ofthe.99 acres of land located at 1065 Fairview Avenue. The property was zoned C-2 (Ada County) and was gnmted a Meridian zoning designation of C-G upon annexation. As part of an annexation application, the City of Meridian could place conditions upon the annexation, and chose to do so in order to ensure the future use and development of the property would be in compliance with the City's development standards. The conditions of approval are found in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FF/CL) for File No. AZ-O 1-0 1 0 (approved 11-20-01). Among the conditions was a requirement to file for a Conditional Use Permit prior to development of the property, the installation of parking per the MCC, the construction of a five foot wide sidewalk on Fairview Avenue, and the installation of a landscape buffer on Fairview Avenne. At the time of the annexation request, the owner of the property, Marsball Ogden and bis partner Cae Parlœr, bad a buyer for the property that intended on developing the property upon annexation into the City. Prior to the night of the City Council Hearing for the annexation of the property, the sale of the property dissolved and Cae Parker requested the annexation request be continued, in order to evaluate their position on the annexation and re-zone request The hearing was continued for two weeks and neither the owner nor bis partner showed up for the continued hearing two weeks later. At that hearing, the City Council determined that the property met the requirements for annexation into the City of Meridian and annexed the parcel of gronnd with the aforementioned conditions. The subject property has remained essentially vacant from the time it was annexed by the City in early 2002. Approximately two (2) weeks ago, a woman came to the Planning and Zoning Department for a Sign Permit for the snbject property. I recognized the address and informed her that there were several conditions that must be met prior to the use of the property for retail use. I gave her a copy of the FF/CL and pointed out the improvements that would be reqnired prior to the use of the property. A few hours later the owner of the property called and stated that he had been unaware of the conditions placed on the property and wanted to know if there was a way to avoid making the reqnired improvements on the property. After talking with the City Attorney, it became apparent that the CUP reqnirement could be eliminated, but all of the other requirements placed on the annexation of the property would need to be met prior to occupancy. The reqnired improvements will be expensive and somewhat time consuming for installation, thereby making it economically nofeasible to develop the property. Upon meeting with Mr. Ogden, I explained the situation and we discussed the requirements and some possible options for resolution of the problem. The result of the conversation, and other conversations, was a request for the issue to be placed in front of the City Council in a Pre-Council meeting, to discnss the annexation, possible de-annexation, or the potential rednction in the reqnirements placed upon the annexation and the different methods for allowing development to 1ake place at 1065 E. Fairview.