CC - Request for Reconsideration of Council Decision for 11-22 findings
Charlene Way
From:Chris Johnson
Sent:Wednesday, December 7, 2022 11:43 AM
To:Paul Elam
Cc:Clerks Comment; Bill Nary
Subject:Request for Reconsideration - Bridgetower Multi-family
Mr. Elam,
Your request for reconsideration has been received. This matter has been scheduled to be heard by City Council on
Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at the 6pm Regular Meeting, which will be held in City Council Chambers, Meridian City
Hall, 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian. The request is not a public hearing, and no presentation or introduction of new
materials will be accepted. City Council will review your request and make a determination.
City Code related to the procedure for a reconsideration request can be found at this link.
Please feel free to contact my office if you have questions.
Have a great day.
Chris Johnson, M.Ed., CMC, IdCMC
City Clerk | City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208.888.4433|Email: cjohnson@meridiancity.org
All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law,
in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law.
1
December 6, 2022
Attn: City Council for the City of Meridian
This request for reconsideration of the findings of fact, conclusions of law and orders made in CR 2022-
0006(H2O22-0047) is submitted pursuant to Meridian Code of Ordinances 1-7-10 on behalf of the
undersigned and every other person who opposed the subject application for a conditional use permit
to build a multi-family apartment project of 235 (+/-) units near the intersection of McMillan Road and
Ten Mile Road. This request for reconsideration is submitted by email pursuant to instructions of the
City Clerk.
Many in our community are very troubled by you lack of sincerity in reviewing the data and
testimony submitted in opposition to the proposed Bridgetower Multi-Family CUP CR-2022-
0006 application.
During the Hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept. 1st, there was close to 4
hours of testimony of local area residents as well as over 100 emails were submitted as public
testimony, articulating why the proposed apartments are wrong for that location. The factors
described in that testimony included:
• Significant traffic counts and concerns with homes already built, under construction or
already approved but not yet built
• Safety related to the nearby Pleasant View Elementary
• Overcrowded Schools
• Response times by Police, Fire and other agencies
• ACHD planning related to not widening McMillian until 2032— 2035
• Home Values being affected by building apartments directly next to a highend
community
• Home Values - People in the nearby Bridgetower West community not even being able
to sell their home due to the increased road traffic with homes adjacent to McMillian
Rd.
For these reasons and others, the Planning and Zoning Commission declined the apartment
application on Sept. 1, 2022.
Then after the developer, Alpha Development Group appealed the rejecting of their
application, an additional hearing was held on Nov. 15, 2022. During this hearing, another 3+
hours of testimony were heard plus over 60 emails had been submitted for review.
During this hearing only one member of the City Council even seemed to ask direct questions of
the developer. This council member stated that based on what they had heard, they were
against the project and would question allowing future projects on McMillian. But in the end,
even that City Council member voted against their conscience and caved to the will of the
developer and their attorney whom had implied during the hearing that they would sue the city
if their application wasn't approved.
At the hearing on Sept. 1, 2022, the Deputy City Attorney, Kurt Starman, articulated that for
only the reasons in City Code— 11-5B-6E Conditional Uses— Findings. These Finding weren't
even addressed by the City Council and include:
3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not
adversely affect other property in the area.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water and sewer.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
For the reasons listed below, I hearby submit this Request for Reconsideration:
• The City Council abdicated their legal responsibility to make findings because all they did
was adopt the report of the planning staff. It's the City Council's responsibility to make
findings, not the responsibility of the staff.
• In turn, all the staff did was incorporate the applicant's narrative of September 29, 2002
(the appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission); see memorandum dated
October 28, 2022, from Associate Planner Joseph Dodson to the Mayor and City Council,
who apparently felt beholden to the Applicant.
• If the City Council had done its job, there is no way the Council could have in good faith
made the required findings, certainly not finding#5 about sufficient infrastructure,
specifically regarding schools and traffic on McMillan Road. Substantial and compelling
factual evidence presented at the hearing and in the record proved clearly and
convincingly, beyond a doubt, that finding#5 could not be supported or made. The
statements by the City Council and their findings, conclusions, and orders to the
contrary constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.
• The principal motivation of the City Council was not to make the necessary findings, as
required by City Ordinances, but to deter a lawsuit threatened by the Applicant. There
was no explanation or sufficient discussion of what the merits of such a lawsuit might
have been, if any, or why any threat of a lawsuit should override the City Council's
responsibility to ensure the safety and welfare of Meridian's citizens.
As an affected party and one who testified at the Hearing, I formally submit this Request for
Reconsideration on behalf of myself and all those that testified against the application on both
9/1//2022 and 11/15/2022.
Sincerely,
Paul Elam
5127 N. Asissi Ave.
Meridian, ID. 83646