Reasons to Deny the SAP Rezoning Application
First a note from Dr. John and Lynn Livingston:
We are blessed and fortunate to have in THE PLANTATION NEIGHBORHOOD and amongst many other concerned friends in Garden City and Boise, a unique collection of sympathetic professionals with technical expertise in the fields of City Planning, Civil Engineering, Environmental Science, Real Estate, Civil, Environmental, Constitutional and Criminal Law and computer science. Most importantly we live amongst neighbors who are personally and politically courageous and are not afraid to stand up publicly and unselfishly for the principles they believe in not the least of which are the rights of property and contract. A respect for others that has over the past 4 months brought our neighborhood together in ways that I could not imagine has been an unintended consequence of our mission. Most of all we have people with talents to organize and communicate and advocate for our position.
To the people who have walked up to our door, sent e-mails, communicated with me and Lynn in other anonymous ways, fearful of the social repercussions because of their support for ‘preserveplantation”; Lynn and I humbly want to express our gratitude and heartfelt thanks.
The collection of “human capital” that has been presented for us to leverage at this right time for our cause in the months and years to come, will be up against an opponent who is formidable, experienced and will have the advantage of being the aggressor, and whose campaign began at least four years ago. We are catching up fast, but we aren’t there yet. By mid-April we will be at “the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end”.
To the neighbors and members of The River Club who have come out against our cause we want you to know that we value your friendship and your position. We hope that as we present our case and in time, you will come to understand our concerns about the events and processes that have occurred over the past four years. Our position on this issue is principled and we are in the fight for the “Long haul”.
To those on our side please know that we will win some battles and lose some battles but in the end—and that end may take years, we plan on Preserving our Plantation.
The letter below is evidence of the commitment and technical expertise that will help us prevail in the end. To the author and to those offering their services, time, and expertise to our cause as we move forward, and to the lawyers and City Planners that we have engaged, we are humbled by your work and your support and courage.
Lynn and I say thanks to everyone and hope to see you on March 13th and 15th.
JML/LLL
A Letter From Concerned Citizen, Andrea Fogleman
TO: Garden City Mayor and Council; and, Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Andrea Fogleman, 6420 W. Plantation Lane, Garden City
DATE: March 3, 2023
RE: Reasons to deny the application to re-zone a portion of the property now known as River Club from R-2 to an SAP with 35+ units per acre.
Applicability of an SAP:
The designated property (22 acres) in the application does not meet the City’s definition as to where an SAP is applicable. Under Ordinance No. 1018-20B, Applicability, “an SAP application is encouraged for the development or redevelopment of properties defined in the comprehensive plan as TOD Activity Nodes, or as, Neighborhood Destination Activity Nodes, or as Future Planning Areas”. The 22 acre area described in the SAP application does NOT meet this requirement. In Resolution #1016-19, Page 37, the Future Zoning Map identifies the 22 acres as “Open Space/Park” not a “Future Planning Area”.
Additionally, Pierce Park is NOT a TOD Activity Node in the State Street Corridor Study. The study identifies 4 TOD Activity Nodes; they are at Whitewater, Collister, Glenwood and Horseshoe Bend roads. This information has been verified by Valley Regional Transit who told me: “There are a total of 44 existing and planned stops on the Route 9/State Street premium corridor. There are 4 transit-oriented development locations. Not all stops will be at TOD locations. Pierce Park will remain as a transit stop for both the Route 9 and the Route 10 Hill Road services”.
Further, the Corridor Study recommends higher density within a ¼ mile of TOD Activity Nodes and therefore it is not applicable to the 22 acres proposed in the SAP application (especially the area OFF of State Street that adjoins the Plantation Neighborhood near Fair Oaks Drive). Collister to Pierce Park is 1.2 miles; Glenwood to Pierce Park is .7 miles. The massive 35+ units per acre development proposed in this SAP application is better located at Whitewater, Collister, Glenwood or Horseshoe Bend Roads, NOT at Pierce Park and especially NOT Off of State Street into an existing neighborhood.
There is some relevance in the application to the Neighborhood Destination Activity Node, which on the Future Zoning Map and identified in Resolution 1061-19 as State Street and Pierce Park. It certainly does not extend off of State Street near Fair Oaks or Charleston in the Plantation Subdivision. The only way this application would qualify for an SAP is IF it only included the area within the Activity Node at Pierce Park and State Street. Resolution 1061-19 defines an “Activity Node” - “for neighborhood centers, local and regional destinations, and locations in proximity to existing and future transit stations and stops. The common characteristics of the activity nodes are a mix of uses, public spaces, compatible transition to the uses surrounding the nodes and non-motorized connections to within a quarter mile walk-able area of the node center.” The development proposed with this SAP does NOT comply with the common characteristics of an Activity Node and since the apartments will be fenced to keep residents from coming onto the golf course and into our yards, it certainly does not include a compatible transition to the neighborhood or provide for full public spaces.
Definition of Terms:
Under Section 8-7A-2 (Definition of Terms) in the Development Services Zoning Code an SAP is defined as “The concept plan for a property, including a narrative and illustrations meeting the application requirements of 8-7B-1.I (Master Plan), plus the proposed unique permitted, conditional and prohibited land uses and the Form Standards for such land uses with the SAP.” The legal property in question is close to 243 acres in its entirety and the “Master Plan” of the full 243 acres should be included in the SAP application, unless of course the proposed 22 acres is being subdivided but we have not seen an application in that regard. The proposed 22 acres is being split out for spot zoning.
The American Planning Association defines a Master Plan as “a dynamic long-term planning document that provides a conceptual layout to guide future growth and development. Master planning is about making the connection between buildings, social settings and their surrounding environments. Webster’s Dictionary defines a Master Plan as “A plan giving overall guidance. The SAP application does not meet the definition as a “Master Plan” unless it recognizes the full 243+/- acres.
Neighborhood Meetings:
This requirement was met by the Applicant. Meetings were held without any details and the information provided to neighbors kept changing. Neighbors were first told there would be approximately 700 apartments in 3-4 story buildings. Then we were told there would be 750-800 apartments in 4-5 story buildings. At the second neighborhood meeting we were told the development plan presented was a “sketch” and that nothing had been finalized. Yet, in Section8-6B-6C4 of the development code it states that details need to be provided as part of the application, yet the neighborhood meeting did not include any specific information.
The Applicant did say that anyone could request to meet with them at any time so three neighbors and I requested a meeting. At the meeting we were told there would be 850 apartments in 5 story buildings, again differing information from the neighborhood meeting. Our goal for this meeting was to discuss reasonable solutions to the many issues we were hearing from our neighbors. Most neighbors realized that there would be some development (likely commercial) along State Street but apartment buildings into the neighborhood was a surprise. We asked the Applicant to eliminate the encroachment onto the 11-12 acres located off of State Street that link to the cul-de-sacs at Fair Oaks and Charleston and are directly behind several single family homes in the Plantation Subdivision. We requested that the buildings for all apartments be kept to a maximum of 3 stories, preferably 2 stories. We provided suggestions on buffers between the Plantation Subdivision and the proposed development. When we asked about future development of the golf course we were told that the golf course would remain and that it was written into the agreement they have with Mr. Gustafason. We asked to see a copy of that specific section of the agreement because it would relieve much of the tension in the neighborhood. None of our requests or suggestions have been considered. Since that time one of our neighbors has been hired by Lincoln to serve as a liaison with neighbors. The liaison promoted a “town hall” meeting with Mr. Gustafason (although he is not the owner). During this meeting Mr. Gustafason said “As long as I’m here there will be a golf course but I can’t commit to anything”. We have received NO concrete information that would apply to a Master Plan for the entire property. Instead, we were told at the second neighborhood meeting “If this SAP does not go through, I’m going to sell the whole property and it will be much worse for you”. How’s that for a friendly neighbor! The Neighborhood Meetings have been a farce.
Property Rights:
Where does one property owner’s rights overlap with an adjoining property owner’s rights?
The Applicant knew this property was zoned R-2 when it was purchased. My husband and I knew the property was zoned R-2 when we purchased 36 years ago. We are NOT infringing on the Applicant’s property rights by opposing this application. In fact, the Applicant is infringing on our property rights by requesting a re-zone to the adjacent property. We paid a premium for our property BECAUSE it was zoned R-2 and advertised as open space on a community golf course. This infringement on our property rights will result in lost property value.
Title 8, Development Code:
This SAP Application is in direct conflict with numerous requirements and goals as stated in Title 8 and for which we as citizens have mutually agreed upon with Garden City. The conflicts in the proposal are obvious by reviewing the following:
Section 8-4A-1 – Purpose: “ A) To ensure that the development of property protects the public, health, safety and welfare of the community; B) To protect property values and rights of all residents; C) To protect and enhance the community’s assets and natural resources.”
Section 8-6B-6 Specific Area Plan: “The goal of this section is to ensure the orderly planning and development of land, by REQUIRING new development to:
Implement the goals and objectives of the city’s comprehensive plan, including the future land use map;
Contribute to the social, economic and environmental sustainability of the city;
Develop in a manner that is highly respectful of the natural setting; that is at a human scale and ensures neighborhood compatibility;
Result in a contribution of amenities to the community including maintaining public access to the Boise River and recreational facilities;
Designate and protect open site area in perpetuity;
Remain consistent with the intent of this title.”
The SAP application DOES NOT MEET the requirements for an SAP and it certainly does not protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. (Side note: When this issue came up at the neighborhood meeting with regard to increased crime, we were told “ MORE EYES MEANS LESS CRIME”; I’m sure you heard the large loud groan from the audience). Should Garden City approve the application in direct conflict with agreed upon goals as written, we might as well start over on the Comprehensive Plan and Development Codes.
We are Garden City; let’s keep the “Garden” and the little bit of open space we have. We are not Boston or New York or California or even Boise. Let us maintain a better quality of life that protects the health, safety and welfare of this community. Garden City is a haven in the Treasure Valley.
As Elected and Appointed officials it is your obligation to protect this community and abide by the covenants, policies and principals that have been established. We have much trust in you. Please deny this SAP application and maintain R-2 as the appropriate zoning for the area.
Submitted respectfully by Andrea Fogleman
Please join us at all upcoming city meetings to show your opposition to the SAP rezoning application. View upcoming meetings here.
To view all city documents related to the SAP rezoning application, click here.