Packet from Alan Wallace of Williams KastnerRECEIVE:?
NOV 1 1 2007
November 20, 2007
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Honorable Mayor de Weerd and Council Members
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642-2300
WILLIAMS KASTNER''
111c
Re: Request for CUP review on behalf of Applicant Rudeen Meridian LLC
Honorable Mayor de Weerd and Council Members:
15506.0103
Williams Kastner is legal counsel for Rudeen Meridian LLC, the applicant for a conditional use permit
(CUP) that is before you on a request for review. We respectfully request that you affirm (1) the
recommendation of Meridian's Planning Department, (2) the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and (3) the City Attorney's determination regarding the Development Agreement and its
effect upon this application.
The CUP application seeks to actualize the City's Development Agreement mandate for use of the
subject property and surrounding area. The Development Agreement calls for low density (17 units
per acre) multiple -family development as a buffer between single-family land uses to the north and
future commercial development to the south. The instant CUP application, as conditioned by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, fully complies with the City Unified Development Code and
properly implements the Comprehensive Plan and Development Agreement. I next discuss several
key points underscoring this conclusion and why the request for review is without merit.
1. The CUP application is reasonably compatible with existing and planned neighboring land
uses.
Compatibility is not sameness, but rather is being capable of living or existing together in
reasonable harmony. The City Council made a legislative determination in 2002 that low
density multi -family housing is a compatible land use with commercial uses on one side and
single-family uses on the other. The City Council's legislative determination of
compatibility is embodied by the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the Lochsa Falls
Development Agreement and CUP.
• Meridian's Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to encourage a variety of housing types
and options for City residents. Indeed, the Idaho Statesman editorialized on the importance
Practicing law with greater resolver"
2130708.1
Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC
Two Union Square
601 Union Street, Suite 4100
Seattle, Washington 98101
main 206.628.6600 fax 206.628.6611
www.williamskastner.com
SEATTLE. TACOMA. PORTLAND
Honorable Mayor de Weerd and Council Members
November 20, 2007
Page 2
of fulfilling this planning mandate at this site. (See Attachment 1 to this letter.) The instant
CUP is a proper step towards Comprehensive Plan implementation.
2. The CUP site plan, building design and landscape buffer requirements afford more privacy
to neighbors than would a typical single-family development.
• Typical single-family development would result in another two-story home backing up to
each existing home along the site margins. A two-story home without a 23 to 25 foot wide
landscape buffer provides no privacy for abutting single-family homes.
• In sharp contrast, the site plan locates fewer residential structures along the north and west
property lines, these structures have no decks facing to the rear, and a maturing landscape
buffer will fully obscure the CUP development in time.
The result is that the CUP development affords considerably greater privacy for adjoining
residents than would a typical row of single-family homes located directly across their
backyards.
3. Rudeen will build and operate this multi -family development in a manner consistent with
its Adagio Apartments located in Covington, Washington.
• Rudeen is a successful builder and operator of over 1,300 apartment units. Rudeen positions
its product consistent with each marketplace.
Well maintained sites and buildings command higher rents, thereby creating a greater value
to the owner. Rudeen will build and maintain its Selway project in a manner consistent
with its Adagio Apartments located in Covington, Washington. Please see Attachment 2 to
this letter, pictures of the Adagio multi -family development. These pictures speak to
Rudeen's commitment to high quality design and maintenance of its apartment
communities, to which I can personally attest.
4. The City Attorney properly informed interested citizens that the City has a legal duty to
honor the Lochsa Falls Development Agreement and CUP and their specification of 171 units
on the subject 10 -acre site.
• Development agreements are legally enforceable contracts amongst a city and property
owners. The failure of either party to perform commitments set forth in the agreement
would serve as the basis for a complaint seeking specific performance and/or damages.
2130708.1
Honorable Mayor de Weerd and Council Members
November 20, 2007
Page 3
5. The City Council should also deny the request for review for failing to satisfy the mandatory
requirement of MCC 11-5A-6 to include "the specific grounds upon which the request is
made."
• The Meridian City Code allows a person to contest a Planning and Zoning Commission
decision by filing a written request which "shall include ... the specific grounds" forming
the basis for the request. Id. The Meridian City Code also requires that the word "shall" is
to be interpreted as creating a mandatory duty. MCC § 11-1-5 INTERPRETATION: A.
Language: 1.
Here, the request for review merely presents the claim that the CUP violates certain
required CUP findings. The request fails to comply with MCC 11-5A-6 by failing to identify
any "specific grounds" as to why the CUP is claimed to violate the required CUP findings.
Grounds are "the reason or point that something (as a legal claim or argument) relies on for
validity." Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., p. 723.
Again, here the "legal claim" that CUP findings are violated has been made without any
specification of the grounds for that claim, i.e., specifying exactly how the CUP is alleged to
violate the City's required findings. The request for review is fatally defective for failing to
comply with this mandatory City Code provision, and warrants denial for this reason
standing alone.
City ordinances should be construed so that effect is given to their provisions, and no part is
rendered superfluous or insignificant. Friends of Farm to Market v. Valley County, 137 Idaho
192, 197 (2002). The City Council should not close its eyes to what its City Code requires for
filing a legally sufficient request for review. Failure of the complaining party to specify
grounds of their appeal call for its denial, even when the City Council holds a de novo
hearing. Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 782 (1994).
6. The Fries/Tiderman lawsuit against the City of Meridian is without legal merit.
Plaintiffs in this lawsuit have been afforded ample opportunity during the public hearing
and application comment period to present any oral and written testimony of their desire.
Plaintiffs' attack on the validity of the Lochsa Falls Development Agreement and CUP is
now untimely, having been approved by the City Council in 2002.
2130708.1
Honorable Mayor de Weerd and Council Members
November 20, 2007
Page 4
Plaintiffs mischaracterize or otherwise misapprehend the City Attorney's statement at the
public hearing. No complaining party was barred from submitting written or oral
argument. The City Attorney merely clarified that project density is set by a prior
development agreement, and that decision cannot be re -visited upon review of a CUP
application seeking to implement that agreement.
Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this matter. I will be in attendance at the
November 27th Council meeting, and will gladly answer any questions you may have at that time.
Very truly yours,
in �l/ '
Alan L. Wallace
(206)628-6771
awallace@williamskastner.com
ALW:fd
cc: City Attorney Bill Narey
Caleb Hood, Planning Department
Kirk Kappen, Rudeen Development
Bart Bennett, Rudeen Development
Daren Fluke, JUM Engineers
2130708.1
Idahostatesman.com
Click Here to Print This Article
June 22, 2007
close
Our View: High-density housing needn't be
feared
In December 2002, the Lochsa Falls planned unit development came before a Meridian City Council looking for something beyond the
typical single-family subdivision.
The project promised more single-family homes — 856 of them, to be exact — but also 11 office buildings, a couple of parks and a
commercial building. The plan also included, as the current council is now painfully aware, 171 apartment units.
The apartment complex is stirring up a neighborhood ruckus, 4 1/2 years after its approval.
Chalk up some of the trouble to confusion. Nearby homeowners say they had no idea they had moved in near an apartment site in
waiting.
The basic controversy, however, stems from a dislike or fear of high-density development. This is a troubling mindset — in no way limited
to the Lochsa Falls flap — and it must change. As Meridian and other Treasure Valley towns continue to grow, higher -density
development is the only way to combat sprawl, and the best way to provide work force housing near job sites.
Critics of the Lochsa Falls complex, known as Selway Apartments, have a litany of concerns.
Some are perfectly reasonable. They worry that streets, schools and local utilities are inadequate to handle an influx of new neighbors.
Meridian City Attorney Bill Nary disagrees. Several road improvements, partially funded with impact fees, are in the Ada County Highway
District's five-year plan; the new Paramount Elementary School will open in the fall, and another school site sits within the area, water
and sewer improvements are sufficient to serve the neighborhood.
Critics also make a broad assumption, saying the apartments will hurt property values in their North Meridian neighborhood. We're
skeptical.
Well-planned, well-built multi -family development will not blight neighborhoods. Rather, this kind of development can be an asset, helping
to attract the mix of light retail and office space that makes neighborhoods more pedestrian- and bike -friendly. Increased density is
essential to creating the neighborhoods that will support public transportation routes.
Builders and developers need to work more multi -family residential into their plans. City councils need to seek out and encourage quality
multi -family housing. But when multi -family development meets neighborhood opposition — as it has, this time around, in North Meridian
— this is apt to push builders and local government toward the path of least resistance. It may encourage more of the same, more
spread -out single-family cul-de-sacs. This "solution" is no solution at all. It only exacerbates the problems of sprawl — bad traffic and bad
air.
Many Treasure Valley residents understand this. They embrace the value of a housing mix, in theory. The greater challenge is embracing
a housing mix in our backyards.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/v-print/story/89926.html 6/22!2007
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
MUM-tclfvily
peVeloPm
encs
�EVEtBpMENt,-
over
�ni�s in
Washington
X011,.
wasnZ000
�tAl�
PUDH�
Recreational
Building
Clubhouse
PUDHE Adagio
Clubhouse
Kitchen
PU�EfN Adagio
�UOHN Adagio
A0404
1.4
POP
Dining
UOEEAdagio
osystc
�10
z.
r
civ �.oPu,�
G�v6t�.
f