Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter by Ryan McDanielPage 1 of 1 Machelle Hill From: Sonya Waters Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 8:21 AM To: Machelle Hill; Tara Green; Nancy Radford; Jaycee Holman Cc: C. Caleb Hood Subject: FW: MCU 08-002 Attachments: Public Comment Devon Park 9 08.doc Written testimony for Fairview Lakes Retail MCU... From: Ryan Mcbaniel [mailto:remedial.mind@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:09 PM To: Sonya Wafters; Sonya Wafters Subject: MCU 08-002 Dear Ms. Waters, _.,id ~__...~ Many thanks for your efforts to guide my research of Devon Park and I certainly hope that the P&Z recognize the skill and professionalism of your office staff in dealing with meaningful citizen involvement. As per your guidance, I have reduced my comments to a simple three page document, which I want you to foreword to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commissioners for their thoughtful cansideratian in their hearing this application. The attached is my analysis of the general neighborhood concerns and commented on the Public Records Request to the Meridian Police Department for Code Enforcement Violations in Devon Park, which I have also asked to be included in the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commissions packet. I have found that Devon Park is a grisley snarl of entitlements, but I have tried to write as precisely as possible while capturing my concerns in this matter. Many of my neighbors will not be able to attend, but have asked me to speak on their behalf: in the event that the time limit for speaking comes into question, I may ask to have a brief extension -but I promise to be succinct. We advocate that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission allow the occupancy permits to be issued for the vacant building, but ask that they consider writing a Site Specific Condition of Approval that "upon the next change (ANY CHANGE) in the developer's plan for developing this site, they require a Master Site Plan" for several good reasons outlined in the attached document. My very best, see you at the meeting. Ryan McDaniel 17$5 North Teare Avenue Meridian, ID 83646 P.S. Please include this email in the public retard 10/10/2008 The Benefits Associated with the Meridian P&Z Restrictine The further Piecemeal Develo ment of Devon Park Forward: The following is a collection of logical reasons that argue for the Meridian P&Z to write a site specific condition for this application that limits the further piecemeal development in Devon Park. The reasoning is organized to begin with a summary of the main issue, several reasons why the issue is relevant before the P&Z and finally an account of why community involvement is important in the success of Devon Park. This document took several months to create. While any section, premise or conclusion below can stand alone, I ask that you consider the totality of these comments. If you find difficulty in agreeing with any one single premise, conclusion or section; just disregard that one section but please consider the remaining components in their own right as unique underpinnings. My goal is to convince you to consider the lots subject to this application in the least, but I believe that making requirements on the entire subdivision will assure that the issues outlined herein are completely resolved. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. Reasoning: 1) What is a reasonable amount of modification that can be made to a development and at what point does continual modification become unreasonable? Case in point, there have already been so many piecemeal applications (20+) on this site that Meridian Planning Staff is in possession of a "Special Tracking Sheet" that serves to unravel all of the various entitlements that have governed Devon Park since its annexation. This is not a clear way to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Please establish a reasonable limit on the continual modification of this site and restrict piecemeal development. 2) Moving established that that predictable piecemeal development pattern exists for Devon Park and may be questionably abundant; at what point should we look at the entire site and stop the occasional glimpse behind the curtain? Please establish reasonable predictability in the further development of Devon Park. 3) The surrounding neighborhood is kept in the dark during piecemeal development because it is disadvantaged in participating in the public process. The community does not have the time, resources, organization or skill to keep track of and every application associated with this development: why not consolidate the entitlements and agree on a common future. Please establish unity and consilience in the adjacent community through a reasonable public involvement process that is triggered by the next application for modifying the entitlements of Devon Park. Can we just master plan the whole site? 4) This predictable piecemeal development pattern places the P&Z at a disadvantage in implementing the Comprehensive Plan through the Zoning Ordinance and UDC because only small glimpses of the site can be made at any given time: the ultimate buildout of the site is always uncertain because there will likely be another change in the next six months. The site ultimately becomes regulated by singular and isolated actions during the piecemeal development cycle. We are relying on the expertise, discretion and oversight of the Staff and Decision Makers of Meridian to regulate the further development of Devon Park. Please establish order in the further development of Devon Park in respect to the end result: "Buildout Condition". Will the Meridian P&Z please install a mechanism to limit further piecemeal development a lications ensure redictabilit in the develo ment attern increase the accessibilit for meanin ful ublic involvement and reduce the uncertaint associated with the further develo ment of Devon park. Multiple administrative approvals and other exceptions/variances to the UDC have been made in the past. The UDC and Comprehensive Plan codify the Community Vision and we have drifted and will continue to drift from that original vision with each additional piecemeal application. Can you just require a master plan far the whole site be triggered upon the next modification, on the grounds that enough-is-enough? Followine the Community Plan: 1) This site is unique because it was originally annexed without a Development Agreement. Therefore, the site did not have exact plans at the time of annexation. Please roll the existing entitlements in one singular entitlement action that everyone can understand in a way that speaks to the context of Devon Park in the Community Plan. 2) There have been an inordinate amount of isolated development applications that have changed the overall development in such a way as to demonstrate that there has never been a commitment to following the community plan. Devon Park is no longer the pristine green-field development that was annexed; it is more complex now, and it needs to be treated with greater skill with each additional change. The increase in complexity is made more complicated with each modification; please recognize that it is becoming a snarl of regulation that is almost beyond the understanding of almost everyone except the Planning Staff. Your Planning Staff can make the complicated -simple- in this regard. 3) The Public involvement history of Devon Park has lead to apathy in the success of the Devon Park and consternation to a Certain degree. Proposals from the developer to the neighborhood have occurred that entail developing the undeveloped portions of the site with grossly incompatible uses (not necessarily.the current application) and have polarized the Neighborhood with the Developer. These changes have been threatening to the neighborhood not because of NIMBY'ism (or the typical variations of the static que) but because there appears to be no plan far the further development of Devon Pprk. People don't fear change nearly as intensely as uncertainty. I have the impression that the conventional wisdom of in the neighborhood is that "another exception to the rules can be made and it's not a big deal because, while it is not a permitted use in the zone, it is a use that can be approved by the P&Z through Administrative Approval" --well, we just want to support the P&Z in implementing the plan and support the P&Z in their consideration of why certain uses are not permitted, in the first place. 4) Most every new version of the development plan is presented in response to some economic pressure ar economic vacuum. The Administrative Approval processes that have been executed in the past to achieve entitlement for uses have occurred merely as a means in accomplishing economic goals, and seemingly not planning goals. We want the developer to fallow planning goals AND economic goals: these are not mutually exclusive. 5) From the initial annexation until today, the ultimate "Buildout Condition" of the site has been uncertain (annexed without a development agreement). With respect to the piecemeal development history of Devon Park, I have no certainty that the current entitlement will remain until the entire site is built-out. Without some authoritative oversight and a decision to limit piecemeal development, Devon Park will continue to be unpredictable. We would like you to Consider Devon Park as a special place on account of its fragmented development application history. Please provide predictability for further developments in Devon Park. The neighborhood would like to request that the P&Z take action that follows the long-term Community Plan to restrict the uncertainty of piecemeal development. We would like development in the community to be based on sound planning principals and not solely on the periodic fluctuations of the economy. The P&Z has already granted multiple modifications to the Devon Park entitlements thru actions that accommodated economic fluctuations; and that is fine, but could we please revisit the need for emphasis to be placed on following the Community Plan? We ask that the Zoning Ordinance and UDC be given priority over temporary economic market conditions. The economy changes rapidly whereas Meridian changes slowly and should be built with deliberate action. We all have vested interest in the prosperity of the development, but not at the expense of the plan: we are just asking the Decision Makers to follow the Community Plan. Evidence for Increasine Community Involvement: 1) Why should the P&Z further grant modifications and exceptions to the rules (per se) when the rules already in effect are not being followed? Devon Park has a history of Code Enforcement Violations. The Developer has made some progress in remediating some of the current Cade Enforcement Violations. Nevertheless, the site is continually made the subject for somewhat serious violations. Most worrisome of all, many of these violations are manifestations of community disinvestment: such as abandoned cars, graffiti, dumping off furniture, discarded alcoholic containers, public nuisances, etc. The developer has expressed frustration in neighborhood meetings and asked neighbors to talk to passing kids, watch for certain activities, talk to parents of kids vandalizing the property and more/less calling Code Enforcement in efforts to protect Devon Park. Some of this is just encouraging the neighborhood residents to act as a good citizens, neighbors or parents: but protecting Devon Park is not really our job. Many of these Code Enforcement Violations are indeed indicating some serious problems that affect the adjacent neighborhoods and the developer. The most serious violations have a particular flavor of community disinvestment that has been shown in other cities to spread across a much broader area. My point is that these problems have the potential to get worse before the site is built out. Consider that the neighborhood tan bring to bear much more powerful tools for solving these kinds of problems than the developer alone, but only if we can buy-into the success of the development by working together: another reason to require a Master Site Plan. Will the P&Z please take action to consolidate community involvement and broaden community investment in the success of Devon Park if further modifications to the existin entitlement are requested by the developer? The Public involvement history of Devon Park has lead to apathy in the success of the Devon Park. This has created unanticipated yet serious problems. Consider that even though the developer has been able to solve some of the Code Violation issues, the developer has asked for the neighborhood to help solve the unresolved issues. Sure, this is the neighborly thing to do, but enforcement is not ourjob: why should the neighborhood have interest in the success of a piecemeal development? A Master Site Planning Process will likely unify the community in this regard and may provide the motivation, energy and buy-in necessary to engage the community in providing greater resources to solve same of the development's problems, much more effectively than the efforts made by the developer alone. Please, recognize that the site continually presents challenges to the Developer and the adjacent neighborhoods; and as long as it stays vacant, these Code Violations will likely persist. I thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. Ryan McDaniel Neighbor 1785 North Teare Avenue Meridian, ID $3646 Page 1 of 1 Machelle Hill From: Sonya Watters Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 8:21 AM To: Machelle Hill; Tara Green; Nancy Radford; Jaycee Holman Cc: C. Caleb Hood Subject: FW: MCU 08-002 Attachments: Public —Comment —Devon Park 9_08.doc 11 Written testimony for Fairview Lakes Retail MCU... From: Ryan McDaniel [mailto:remedial.mind@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:09 PM To: Sonya Wafters; Sonya Wafters Subject: MCU 08-002 Dear Ms. Watters, Many thanks for your efforts to guide my research of Devon Park and I certainly hope that the P&Z recognize the skill and professionalism of your office staff in dealing with meaningful citizen involvement. As per your guidance, I have reduced my comments to a simple three page document, which I want you to foreword to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commissioners for their thoughtful consideration in their hearing this application. The attached is my analysis of the general neighborhood concerns and commented on the Public Records Request to the Meridian Police Department for Code Enforcement Violations in Devon Park, which I have also asked to be included in the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commissions packet. oss ble whhave le ca �r ng my on ernsevon Park is a sley snarl of in this matt rentitlements, but I have tried to write as precisely asp p Many of my neighbors will not be able to attend, but have asked me to speak on their behalf: in the event that the time limit for speaking comes into question, I may ask to have a brief extension -but I promise to be succinct. We advocate that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission allow the occupancy permits to be issued for the vacant building, but ask that they consider writing a Site Specific Condition of Approval that 'pup ahe nexMastert Site Planchange Afor severaCHAlvgoodlreasons outlinn the ed inithe attached for developing this site, they require document. My very best, see you at the meeting. Ryan McDaniel 1785 North Teare Avenue Meridian, ID 83646 P.S. Please include this email in the public record 10/ 10/2008 The Benefits Associated with the Meridian P&Z Restricting The further Piecemeal Development of Devon Park Forward: The following is a collection of logical reasons that argue for the Meridian P&Z to write a site specific condition for this application that limits the further piecemeal development in Devon Park. The reasoning is organized to begin with a summary of the main issue, several reasons why the issue is relevant before the P&Z and finally an account of why community involvement is important in the success of Devon Park. remise or conclusion below This document took several months to create. While any section, p can stand alone, I ask that you consider the totality of these comments. If you find difficulty in agreeing with any one single premise, conclusion or section; just disregard that one section but please consider the remaining components in their own right as unique underpinnings. My goal is to convince you to consider the lots subject to this application in the least, but I believe that making requirements on the entire subdivision will assure that the issues outlined herein are completely resolved. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. Reasoning: 1) What is a reasonable amount of modification that can be made to a development and at what point does continual modification become unreasonable? Case in point, there have already been so many piecemeal applications (20+) on this site that Meridian Planning Staff is in possession of a "Special Tracking Sheet" that serves to unravel all of the various entitlements that have governed Devon Park since its annexation. This is not a clear way to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Please establish a reasonable limit on the continual modification of this site and restrict piecemeal development. 2) Having established that that predictable piecemeal development pattern exists for Devon Park and may be questionably abundant; at what point should we look at the entire site and stop the occasional glimpse behind the curtain? Please establish reasonable predictability in the further development of Devon Park. rhood is kept in the dark during piecemeal development because it is 3) The surrounding neighbo c process. The community does not have the time, resources, disadvantaged in participating in the publi organization or skill to keep track of and every application associated with this development: why not consolidate the entitlements and agree on a common future. Please establish unity and consilience in the adjacent community through a reasonable public involvement process that is triggered by the next application for modifying the entitlements of Devon Park. Can we just master plan the whole site? 4) This predictable piecemeal development pattern places the P&Z at a disadvantage in implementing the Comprehensive Plan through the Zoning Ordinance and UDC because only small glimpses of the site can be made at any given time: the ultimate buildout of the site is always uncertain because there will likely be another change in the next six months. The site ultimately becomes regulated by singular and isolated actions during the piecemeal development cycle. We are relying on the expertise, ian to discretion and oversight of Park Please es ablish o der in the furff and Decision Mkers of therdevelopmentregulate development of Devon Park in respect development of Devon Paa to the end result: "Buildout Condition". Will the Meridian P&Z please install a mechanism to limit further piecemeal development applications, ensure predictability in the development pattern, increase the accessibility for meaningful public involvement and reduce the uncertainty associated with the further development of Devon park. Multiple administrative approvals and other exceptions/variances to the UDC have been made in the past. The UDC and Comprehensive Plan codify the Community Vision and we have drifted and will continue to drift n for the who eoriginal s to be triggered ponadditional the nextpiecemeal mod f cat on, on tapplication. you he g ounds just require a master pla that enough -is -enough? Following the Community Plan: 1) This site is unique because it was originally annexed without a Development Agreement. Therefore, the site did not have exact plans at the time of annexation. Please roll the existing entitlements in one singular entitlement action that everyone can understand in a way that speaks to the context of Devon Park in the Community Plan. 2) There have been an inordinate amount of isolated development applications that have changed the overall development in such a way as to demonstrate that there has never been a commitment to following the community plan. Devon Park is no longer the pristine green -field development that was annexed; it is more complex now, and it needs to be treated with greater skill with each additional recognize change. The increase in complexity is made more complicated with each modification; p g that it is becoming a snarl of regulation that is almost beyond the understanding of almost everyone except the Planning Staff. Your Planning Staff can make the complicated -simple- in this regard. 3) The Public involvement history of Devon Park has lead to apathy in the success of the Devon Park and consternation to a certain degree. Proposals from the developer to the neighborhood have occurred that entail developing the undeveloped portions of the site with grossly incompatible uses (not necessarily the current application) and have polarized the Neighborhood with the Developer. These changes have been threatening to the neighborhood not because of NIMBY'ism (or the typical variations of the static que) but because there appears to be no plan for the further development of Devon Park. People don't fear change nearly as intensely as uncertainty. I have the impression that the conventional wisdom of in the neighborhood is that "another exception to the rules can be made and it's not a big deal because, while it is not a permitted use in the zone, it is a use that can be approved by the P&Z through Administrative Approval" —well, we just want to support the P&Z in implementing the plan and support the P&Z in their consideration of why certain uses are not permitted, in the first place. 4) Most every new version of the development plan is presented in response to some economic pressure or economic vacuum. The Administrative Approval processes that have been executed in the past to achieve entitlement for uses have occurred merely as a means in accomplishing economic goals, and seemingly not planning goals. We want the developer to follow planning goals AND economic goals: these are not mutually exclusive. 5) From the initial annexation until today, the ultimate "Buildout Condition" of the site has been uncertain (annexed without a development agreement). With respect to the piecemeal development history of Devon Park, I have no certainty that the current entitlement will remain until the entire site is built -out. Without some authoritative oversight and a decision to limit piecemeal development, Devon Park will continue to be unpredictable. ellke you toconsider provideDevonpredictability special on account of its fragmented development application historyPlease fofurther developments in Devon Park. The neighborhood would like to request that the P&Z take action that follows the long-term Community Plan to restrict the uncertainty of piecemeal development. We would like development in the community to be based on sound planning principals and not solely on the periodic fluctuations of the economy. The P&Z has already granted multiple modifications to the Devon Park entitlements thru actions that accommodated economic fluctuations; and that is fine, but could we please revisit the need for emphasis to be placed on following the oPlan? condit conditions. ask economy changeOrdinance and UDC be given priority over temporary economic market rapidly whereas Meridian changes slowly and should be built with deliberate action. We all have vested interest in the prosperity of the development, but not at the expense of the plan: we are just asking the Decision Makers to follow the Community Plan. Evidence for Increasing Community Involvement: 1) Why should the P&Z further grant modifications and exceptions to the rules (per se) when the rules already in effect are not being followed? Devon Park has a history of Code Enforcement Violations. The Developer has made some progress in remediating some of the current Code Enforcement Violations. Nevertheless, the site is continually made the subject for somewhat serious violations. Most worrisome of all, many of these violations are manifestations of community disinvestment: such as abandoned cars, graffiti, dumping off furniture, discarded alcoholic containers, public nuisances, etc. The developer has expressed frustration in neighborhood meetings and asked neighbors to talk to passing kids, watch for certain activities, talk to parents of kids vandalizing the property and more/less calling Code Enforcement in efforts to protect Devon Park. Some of this is just encouraging the neighborhood residents to act as a good citizens, neighbors or parents: but protecting Devon Park is not really our job. Many of these Code Enforcement Violations are indeed indicating some serious problems that affect the adjacent neighborhoods and the developer. The most serious violations have a particular flavor of community disinvestment that has been shown in other cities to spread across a much broader area. My point is that these problems have the potential to get worse before the site is built out. Consider that the neighborhood can bring tolbwe can buy -in r much to the succetoss ols f the developmentkinds by worki g lems than the developer alone, but only together: another reason to require a Master Site Plan. Will the P&Z please take action to consolidate community involvement and broaden community investment in the success of Devon Park if further modifications to the existing entitlement are requested by the developer? The Public involvement history of Devon Park has lead to apathy in the success of the Devon Park. This has created unanticipated yet serious problems. Consider that eveasked though the developer has been able to solve some of the Code Violation issues, the developerfor the neighborhood to help solve the unresolved issues. Sure, this is the neighborly thing to do, but enforcement is not our job: why should the neighborhood have interest in the success of a piecemeal development? A Master Site Planning Process will likely unify the community in this regard and may provide the motivation, energy and buy -in necessary to engage the community in providing greater resources to solve some of the development's problems, much more effectively than the efforts made by the developer alone. Please, recognize that the site continually presents challenges to the Developer and the adjacent neighborhoods; and as long as it stays vacant, these Code Violations will likely persist. I thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. Ryan McDaniel Neighbor 1785 North Teare Avenue Meridian, ID 83646 ' SEP 2 3 2008 POLICE DEPARTMENT f "ITY CI_FRK F ICF Phone: (208) 888-6678 Jeff A. Lavey Fax: (208) 846-7366 Chief of Polite September 17, 2008 Ryan McDaniel 1785 N. Teare Ave. Meridian, ID 83646 Remedial.m ind@gmail.com Mr. McDaniel, I am writing you this letter in response to your inquiry in May 2008 and September 2008 regarding code violations within the Devon Park subdivision. In both May and September, code violations in the subdivision were located and have been addressed. olations within in May, Code Enforcement OfficerTom on the telephone. assignedaker was V olatlons found werelweeds longer than tight n Park subdivision after you and I spokeowners/managers were notified of the inches, junk/construction debris, and graffiti. Once the property violations, the properties came into compliance with code within the allotted timeframe. After your inquiry in September, Officer Baker returned to the property to evaluate for code violations. Weed violations were found on several W0n1and seeking that thletters e property be in compliance to theproperty owners informing them of the eed violations the city code. Meridian Code Enforcement does not se todocument every the level of beinglolation they encounter. If compliance is formally documented as a code violation. As a obtained the incident might notof rise result, large portions of code violations addressed by Code Enforcement Officers are not documented. In your inquiry, you asked if the code violations iolatoonsare documented andat Devon Park 'no formulvision are a exists,to d t rmine and I will t comment to that question because not al which and/or how many code violations in a manystbmes'Meridianwould Code Enforcement adddreslsed codeI am unable to provide accurate data on how violations within the Devon Park subdivision, since that information is not captured in a database. Sincerely, eJohnonzales y Services Division 1401 East Watertower 9 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Page 1 of 4 Machelle Hill From: Sonya Watters Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:31 AM To: Machelle Hill; Tara Green; Nancy Radford; Jaycee Holman Cc: Ryan McDaniel Subject: FW: Devon Park - Public Records Request, revision to original request. Attachments: Ryan McDaniel.pdf Tara, Mr. McDaniel requested the attached letter be included in the P&Z packet for Fairview Lakes Retail MCU. Thanks, Sonya Sgt. Gonzales, Thank you for responding to the request and for resolving &Z Commi odoner's packet for CU 08-002?both occasions. Sonya, could we please add this to th Thank you very much, Ryan. From: John Gonzales Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 11:50 AM To: Ryan McDaniel Cc: Sonya Wafters Subject: RE: Devon Park - Public Records Request, revision to original request. Mr. McDaniel, I will mail your letter today; however, I have attached a copy of the letter to this email. Sgt. John Gonzales From: Ryan McDaniel[ma ilto:remedial. mind @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 9:32 AM To: John Gonzales lic Records Request, revision to original request. Subject: Re: Devon Park - Pub Good Morning Officer Gonzales, Just as a friendly reminder, I have a Planning & Zoning Meeting to attend this Thursday, September 18th. I would like to review your findings at this meeting. Is it possible to send me your findings prior to 12:pm on Thursday? Thank you again. 9/23/2008 Page 2 of 4 Best, Ryan On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Ryan McDaniel <remedial mind(�W.com> wrote: Thank you sir, have a happy weekend. Best, Ryan. On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:31 PM, John Gonzales < onzale meridiancity.org> wrote: I did receive your email. I have an office re -checking h the letter addresyou seeking current code violations. I will be checking with him next week in order begin drafting John G From: Ryan McDaniel [mailto:remed_ial mind@gmaail com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 10:29 AM To: John Gonzales Subject: Fwd: Devon Park - Public Records Request, revision to original request. Dear Officer Gonzales, did you receive the below message? Ryan. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan McDaniel <reme_dial.mind mail.com> Date: Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:18 PM Subject: Devon Park - Public Records Request, revision to original request. To: gonzalel c@i m_eridiancity.org Cc: Sonya Watters <watterss(?� diancitorg> Dear Officer Gonzales, ly Thank you for taking the time to help me refine my request an extension of the previous deliverable product. MY original Public Records Request was made in early May and this mail is conversations we have had. As we discussed, I will be satisfied with the following information: 1) Background: 9/23/2008 Page 3 of 4 nforcement Please provide a statement regarding any known rcorts of non -code compliance that I hakground or history of previous Code Ee initiated ated and Violations on the parcel. I am only aware of the e p would like more information on this issue. I alerted May 2008 Stan Police anding nd ng WateraWeedsrtment aJunk & Graffiti to 4 specific code enforcement violations in early y (at least 3 locations behind the Hastings). I did not led as neighbors.r citations Ato hat time, the Developer (Mr; rather, I directed the notification to the Developer so it could be hand Tamura) did admit that a contractor had also installed nafloodlights aidh flaatlheintended to fix them, but I am illuminating which is expressly prohibited in the current entitlement) alice uncertain if this has been fixed. Within the i rs I did contact the Meridian sin a "recently dest oyed'P�ondiD n partment on another issue: to remove an abandoned vehicle t attwa Devon Park. At that time, I did not know if this sort of thing was a trend and disregarded it as a fluke. Please consider all of the above during your site inspection. 2) Progress Report: Please send an officer to inspect the site and make determination operty ias nto �ompliancethe wrth Meridian Code. eveloper has successfully followed instructions and acted to g p I had asked Mr. Tamura to take care of these lice Department, Code Enforcement Divs without taking it to the next level, anda on. Again, I I'm requesting an assessment by the Meridian P am not asking for Citations to be issued -but I leave that course of action up to the discretion of the Officer, as is always the case. 3) Professional Opinion: developer has In respect to the above stated Background and Progreds1aRCode. eport oSecondly, would f the progress the you comment in ade in bringing this parcel back in compliance with Men professional capacity as to weather this i� a typical amount l� lartialityues rif youecan not provide non -typical amount of issues for a developer to have. With respectP comment as to the typicality of these issues, then provide a sentence explaining why that determination unable to be made? Again, thank you for taking the time to meet with me last response this message is suon these issues d helpinen g me refine this request to a more relevant discussion. An email Best, Ryan McDaniel 1785 North Teare Avenue Meridian, ID 83646 9/23/2008 Page 4 of 4 remedial.mind ail.com 869-1391 9/23/2008