Comments by Kleiner Family Trust 03/02/10Meridian City Council Hearing, March 2, 2010: Comments by the Kleiner Family
Comments by David Kleiner, Trustee, on behalf of the Kleiner Family Trust
To the Meridian City Council:
The following comments relate to the Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park Trust
Development Agreement and site plan.
1. I have no comment on the proposed changes regarding the road extensions and the
irrigation tile.
2. I spoke to Mr. Pete Friedman, from the City Planning Department, last week. While
the comments below relate to the park site plan, and not to the proposed changes before
the Council, Mr. Friedman recommended that I present these comments for the hearing
today.
3. According to Mr. Friedman, the Park Trust development agreement requires a noticed
hearing for review and approval of the Park Trust site plan. I may provide additional
comments at such hearing after the final site plan becomes available.
4. I have one particular concern now -with respect to the construction of Park Lane.
This is based on limited information because I have not been presented an opportunity to
review a detailed site plan.
From the discussions with Mr. Friedman, I understand there is a possibility the Park Trust
may construct either (1) the entire Park Lane, including two travel lanes plus curb, gutter,
and sidewalk on both sides of the road; or (2) "one-half plus 12", which would include
two travel lanes, plus curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the north side of the road.
Apparently the second scenario would require the Kleiner Family Trust ("KFT") to
provide roughly 12 feet ofright-of--way and construct some roadway, plus curb, gutter,
and sidewalk on the south side of the road.
The KFT objects to any plan by the City and/or the Park Trust to require KFT to
contribute right-of--way for Park Lane or construct part of Park Lane, for the following
reasons:
a. Park Lane is planned by the Park Trust and/or City for the benefit of the park
development.
Based on a discussion with a park design representative, Iwas told that Park Lane would
satisfy a City requirement to provide fire truck access into the park from two different
points, i.e. from Records Road and from Venture Street. It would also provide additional
access and circulation for park traffic.
Based on a discussion with a KFT representative, who spoke last year to an ACHD
representative, Iwas told that ACRD would require a connection between Venture Street
and Records Road, so as to provide alternative access to Fairview Avenue for the
residents of the Venture subdivision.
Clearly, Park Lane satisfies several objectives for the park development. It is included
for the park's benefit or to satisfy development standards and should be paid for by the
park.
b. The KFT development agreement requires KFT to provide one drive lane throu h the
East Parcel. Re uq firing KFT to may for part of Park Lane, in addition to the mid-parcel
drive lane shown on the concept plan, would obligate KFT to provide more than one such
drive lane, contrar~to the terms of the development agreement.
The KFT development agreement ("KFT DA") requires KFT to provide a minimum of
one drive aisle or road connection between Venture Street and Records Road. KFT DA,
Section 5.1.21.B.
While it is premature to plan the development of the East Parcel now, KFT expects to
provide a drive aisle or road through the East Parcel roughly 400 feet north of Fairview
Avenue - in the general location shown on the concept plan. This connection will
provide access from both Records Road and Venture Street along with interior access
across the entire parcel. This mid-parcel drive lane would serve as the required drive
aisle or road under Section 5.1.21.B.
The KFT DA gives KFT flexibility in responding to future market conditions and in
planning for a development that may occur in the distant future. This flexibility gives
KFT the right to provide an alternative site plan and to select drive aisle locations. KFT
DA, Section 5.1.8. By these terms, the KFT should be free to designate the mid-parcel
drive lane from the concept plan as the one required drive location. For the City to
require KFT to provide part of Park Lane, in addition to, or instead of, the mid-parcel
drive lane, would require KFT to provide more than one such drive or road connection,
which is contrary to the terms of the DA.
Dated: 03/02/10
By: David Kleiner, Trustee, Kleiner Family Trust
2