Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ - Foley Freeman PLLC LettersHOWARD R. FOLEY MARK S. FREEMAN PATRICK J. GEILE LEAH F. SHOTWELL MATTHEW G. BENNETT LINDA E. WELLS FOLEY FREEMAN, PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 953 S. INDUSTRY WAY P.O. BOX 10 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680 August 22, 2018 VIA E-MAIL: chood(Fenreridiancity.or� Caleb Hood Planning Division Manager City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Application for Owyhee Schoo(AZ, CUP H-2018-0075 FF Client No. 1000-059 Dear Caleb: TELEPHONE: (208) 888-9111 FACSIMILE: (208) 888-5130 WEB SITE: www foleyfreeman.com Our firm represents the West Ada School District ("WASD"). I acknowledge receipt of a copy of Mr. Wardle's letter to you dated August 8, 2018, regarding the concerns of his client, Woodside Avenue Investors, LLC ("Woodside"), with WASD's annexation request. My purpose in writing is to outline the solutions which my client has previously proposed to Woodside to address its concerns. As acknowledged in Mr. Wardle's letter, my client's representatives have met with Woodside in an attempt to address its concerns regarding the WASD application. Mr. Wardle's characterization of WASD's response to his client's concerns as "dismissive" is simply not accurate. As a result of these communications, WASD has proposed reasonable solutions to allow Woodside and the owners of the adjoining undeveloped parcels to obtain future access from additional public roads and it has also provided infrastructure that is more than adequate to also serve these neighboring parcels. WASD is simply not obligated to bear the expense of converting the Woodside parcel to a "development -ready" condition—which appears to be Woodside's goal. Since Mr. Wardle's letter included attachments with various correspondence (between WASD's consultant, his client, as well as letters between Mr. Wardle, my client and myself), attached hereto is Exhibit "I"' is a copy of my letter to Mr. Wardle dated August 16, 2018. We request that this letter and the attached exhibit be included in the record relating to WASD's application. Caleb Hood August 22, 2018 Page 2 I. Roadway Access: Woodside requests the City to condition the approval of WASD's application upon WASD's construction of an access road from western collector across the southern portion of the WASD parcel. In response, WASD has offered to grant an easement across its parcel for a possible future road in the location as depicted in diagram the attached to Exhibit "F." The apparent sticking -point is that Woodside wants the road to be constructed by WASD and they want WASD to pay the majority of the costs associated therewith (per Exhibit "E" to Mr. Wardle's letter, Woodside had proposed to pay 10% of such costs). Aside from the fact that both the Woodside and Flower parcels currently have frontage on Ustick Road (and in the case of the Woodside parcel, also on McDermott Road), since WASD's surplus parcel will have direct access to the proposed western collector, this proposed road for the sole benefit of the Woodside and Flower parcels, and it is not appropriate to require WASD to use public funds to construct it. It is also significant to note that ACHD does not support the construction of this access roadway and did not require it in its initial and subsequent draft staff reports. In addition, ACHD has indicated that it does not oppose an access road off Ustick Road at the southwest corner running north along the west side of the Woodside parcel. It is inappropriate to require WASD to construct and pay for any portion of this access road. WASD's offer to set aside a portion of its valuable property for an easement for this possible future access road is a reasonable solution to Woodside's concerns regarding access to its parcel. II. Sewer Access: Woodside requests the City to condition the approval of WASD's application upon mainline sewer service being constructed, at WASD expense, through the WASD parcel to the Woodside and Flower parcels. In response, WASD has offered to grant reasonable access to sewer service by providing Woodside with an easement over the WASD parcel to allow Woodside, at its expense, to extend the 8" sewer main line to its parcel. Similarly, WASD is willing to grant reasonable access to sewer service by providing Flowers with an easement over the WASD parcel to allow Flowers, at its expense, to extend the 8" sewer main line to its parcel. Woodside and Flowers is requesting the City to require WASD to pay for something that greenfield development does not typically include: the extension of utilities to all parcels that touch the proposed development. Section 5-10 of the City of Meridian Public Works Department, 2016 Design Standards, contemplates that it is the property owners, not the developers, that are responsible for paying the associated costs to run sewer service to their respective parcels. Requiring WASD to assume this obligation is not appropriate and would be an improper expenditure of public funds. As required, WASD's plan provides reasonable access to sewer in the area via the installation of the sewer main line to, and through, the north portion of its parcel. Nothing in WASD's plan adversely affects Woodside's ability to tie into the future sewer trunk line in McDermott Road. Caleb Hood August 22, 2018 Page 3 It would be inappropriate to require WASD, at its expense, to install sewer service to the Woodside and Flower parcels. WASD's proposal to grant an easement through its parcel, and willingness to work with Woodside to install the sewer line during WASD's construction, is a reasonable solution to Woodside's concerns regarding access to sewer. III. Water Access: It is my understanding that there is no disagreement between WASD, Woodside, and Flower regarding WASD's plan to extend the water main to the WASD parcel via the Ustick Road right- of-way. WASD is willing to agree to install stubs for water access to the Woodside and Flower parcels if they will agree to reimburse WASD for the associated cost. We understand that Woodside has concerns with the proposed construction of SH -16 and how it will affect its property. However, the Woodside parcel is greatly benefited by WASD's development plan, since it allows Woodside to obtain access to sewer, water, roads, and adjacency for the purpose of annexation. Woodside's concerns about the potential impact of the future highway should be addressed between ITD and Woodside when they are ripe for consideration. It is ITD, not WASD, that is the entity that is responsible to compensate Woodside should the ultimate construction of the highway negatively impact the value of the Woodside parcel. Requiring WASD to foot -the -bill to alleviate all of Woodside's concerns as part of the construction of this high school is not appropriate, is cost -prohibitive to WASD, and is not a proper use of public school funds. Sincerely, MSF/klh cc: Client Geoffrey M. Wardle Mindy Wallace, ACHD Amy Revis, ITD Enclosure FOLEY FREEMAN, PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 953 S. INDUSTRY WAY P.O. BOX 10 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680 HOWARD R. FOLEY MARK S. FREEMAN PATRICK J. GEILE LEAH F. SHOTWELL MATTHEW G. BENNETT LINDA E. WELLS August 16, 2018 Geoffrey M. Wardle Spink Butler, LLP PO Box 639 Boise, ID 83701 Re: Owyhee High School Site Client No. 1000-059 Dear Mr. Wardle: Thank you for your letter dated August 7, 2018. TELEPHONE: (208) 888-9111 FACSIMILE: (208) 888-5130 WEB SITE: www folyfrzeman.0m I must reiterate that the development proposed by my client, the West Ada School District ("WASD"), is not negatively affecting the parcel owned by your client, Woodside Avenue Investors, LLC, dba Boise Hunter Homes ("Hunter") -- or any of the other neighboring parcels. WASD has proposed reasonable solutions to allow your client and the owners of the adjoining undeveloped parcels to obtain future access from public roads, and it has also proposed infrastructure that is more than adequate to also serve the affected parcels. You are correct in asserting that Meridian and other cities typically require "that adjoining undeveloped properties be provided reasonable access to and adequate capacity in the infrastructure that is necessary to serve the larger area in the future." WASD has extended proposals which provide such reasonable access. As in your letter, I will address the issues separately. Roadway Access — I am encouraged by your client's recognition that the construction of a future road along the north end of the retained WASD parcel as proposed by my client is a possible solution to provide additional roadway access to the Hunter and Flower parcels (in addition to their frontage on Ustick Road). Since my client's retained parcel fronting Ustick has direct access to the proposed collector roadway, the construction of this road is for the sole benefit of the Hunter and Flower parcels. My client has proposed EXHIBIT F Geoffrey M. Wardle August 16, 2018 Page 2 setting aside 47' of its land to enable the Hunter and Flower parcels to obtain access from the proposed collector roadway to their respective parcels should SH -16 be ultimately funded and constructed, and an access road along the west side of the Hunter parcel be restricted to right in, right out at Ustick Road–ACHD has stated they do not oppose an access road off Ustick Road at the southwest corner running north along the west side of the Hunter parcel, The reason that this is not yet depicted on WASD's site plan is that the proposal to provide the permanent easement was conditioned upon WASD's sole contribution being the land, and your client has, to date, refused to agree to assume the obligation and expense to construct the road. As a result, WASD stands by its position that the road would need to be paid for by your client. If your client agrees to fund the construction of this frontage road, the renderings of your client's consultant which were enclosed with your letter appear to be appropriate. It is important to keep in mind that your client does not need this road to access its parcel, as it currently has direct access from both Ustick and McDermott roads. ACHD does not support the construction of this access roadway and is not requiring it in the draft staff report. It is the proposed construction of SH -16 that creates the possible future need for alternative access—something that is so speculative it hasn't even been funded yet. Sewer Location – The City of Meridian Public Works Department, 2016 Design Standards ("Design Standards") contemplate that it is the property owners, not the developers that are responsible for paying the associated costs to run sewer service to theirparcels. See Section 5-10. Your client is asking for WASD to pay for something that greenfield development does not typically include—the extension of utilities to all parcels that touch the proposed development. Not only would this be cost prohibitive to the WASD, but it would also be an improper use of public funds. WASD's plan provides reasonable access to sewer in the area via the installation of the sewer main line to, and through, the north portion of its parcel. Nothing in WASD's plan adversely affects your client's ability to tie into the future sewer trunk line in McDermott Road. WASD has also offered to provide reasonable access by providing Hunter with an easement over the WASD parcel to allow your client to extend the 8" sewer line to the Hunter parcel. As the property owner seeking sewer, Hunter, not WASD, must bear the expense of extending this sewer line. Water – I don't believe that there is any disagreement between WASD, Hunter, and Flower regarding my client's plan to extend the water main to the WASD parcel via the Geoffrey M. Wardle August 16, 2018 Page 3 Ustick Road right-of-way. WASD would agree to install a stub for water access if Hunter pays the cost. The proposals set forth in this letter are subject to agency comment and approval and are also subject to the approval of WASD's board of trustees. I understand your client's concern with the proposed construction of SH -16, however, there are no immediate plans to construct this highway, and as it sits today, your client's parcel has access from both McDermott and Ustick roads. It is the possible future construction of SH -16 that may have an adverse effect upon the Hunter parcel—not the proposed development of the WASD parcel. Quite to the contrary, the Hunter parcel is greatly benefited by WASD's development plan, since it can have access to sewer, water, and future right of access to the proposed collector roadway on the WASD parcel should SH -16 be ultimately constructed. WASD has proposed several options which are more than adequate to address your client's reasonable concerns as a neighboring parcel. However, other than providing the land for the sewer and road access easements as proposed, WASD is not obligated to bear the expense of converting the Hunter parcel to a "development -ready" condition, it simply does not have the budget to do so, and it is not legally required to assume this obligation. There is no inequity or inconsistency here. WASD has complied with its requirements to provide reasonable access to and through its property. Again, it is not WASD's obligation to pay to extend services to all adjacent parcels. Sincerely, MSFlklh cc: Client .0 k @ 4 §E )$0 }0 E.s `| 8A § 6Z 8 o ` cm) E |) |, e){} .— §lkr2 ) ^ 2||$k -� § lei 31:�(6ea «;ww4w ƒ FOLEY FREEMAN, PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 953 S. INDUSTRY WAY P.O. BOX 10 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680 HOWARD R. FOLEY MARK S. FREEMAN PATRICK J. GEILE LEAH F. SHOTWELL MATTHEW G. BENNETT LINDA E. WELLS July 10, 2018 Geoffrey M. Wardle Spink Butler, LLP P© Box 639 Boise, ID 83701 Re: Owyhee High School Site Client No. 1000-059 Dear Mr. Wardle: TELEPHONE: (208) 888-9111 FACSIMILE: (208) 888-5130 WEB SITE: a ivwfoleyfreeman.com I represent the West Ada School District ("WASD") regarding the parcel of land located on Ustick Road west of McDermott. I am in receipt of your letter dated June 20, 2018, and I have some concerns with your assessment of the situation. As I am sure that you are aware, a comprehensive plan reflects the desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situation of use of land. Krempasky v. Nez Perce County Planning & Zoning, 150 Idaho 231, 235 (2010). It is not considered to be a legally controlling zoning law; rather it is a guide to "'advise the various governing bodies responsible for making zoning decisions." Bone v. Lewiston, 107 Idaho 884 (1984). I understand your concern with the proposed construction of Highway 16 across a parcel of land owned by your client. Although the construction of this road is speculative, your client will be compensated by ITD for any taking of land under Idaho's eminent domain laws. However, WASD's plans to build a high school to the west of your client's parcel is not a taking, and it will only benefit your client. WASD's development of its parcel, has nothing but a positive impact on the parcel owned by your client. Not only are water and sewer lines being extended to a place where your client will be able to easily access them for future development, but the new high school and roads will significantly increase the value of your client's property. Geoffrey M. Wardle July 10, 2018 Page 2 As set forth in the June 13, 2018 email from my client's consultant, Matt Adams with The Land Group, WASD has made a good faith effort to address the concerns raised by your client in WASD's plans for the development of its property. These proposals addressed methods whereby your client could obtain access to sewer, water, and roads to its parcel. Your client has apparently rejected these efforts and has insisted that WASD spend taxpayer funds to assist in the development of your client's parcel. This is neither my client's obligation nor is it appropriate. WASD has constructed numerous school sites in greenfield developments and is fully aware of the costs associated therewith. It will spend considerable resources in order to bring water and sewer to and through the school site, and to obtain roadway access. However, it would be inappropriate for WASD to expend public funds to run sewer and water lines to all of the surrounding parcels. Instead, WASD has communicated its willingness to provide easements across its property in order to accommodate the construction of water, sewer, and roadway improvements to serve your client's property. Your client, however, must be responsible for the cost of extending these services to its parcel. 1. Roadwav Access: With regards to your concerns over future road access, please keep in mind that the proposed highway has not even been funded, and your client currently has access to its property from both Ustick and McDermott roads. WASD has no desire to exchange its current surplus frontage on Ustick Road for your client's parcel. WASD plans on constructing a road on the western boundary of its property, but this in no way results in substantial prejudice to your client. The location of this road on the western boundary is necessary for traffic flow from and to the high school. If the Highway 16 is ultimately funded and constructed, WASD is not opposed to the construction of a road a quarter mile west of McDermott on the properties to the east of the school site. In fact, the future land use plan contemplates that a road will be constructed at this quarter -mile mark where your client would have access should Highway 16 be constructed. Regardless, WASD is not obligated to pay for the construction of an access road along the west boundary of your client's property. As set forth in Matt Adams' email referenced above, one of the options for roadway access to your client's parcel is the grant of a 47' permanent easement between the proposed access road to the school site and your client's parcel, through the southerly Geoffrey M. Wardle July 10, 2018 Page 3 portion of the WASD parcel. My client will consider shifting its proposed high school development somewhat to allow for this entire easement to be located on the WASD parcel. Although my client appears willing to provide the easement for this future road, your client will need to pay for the design and construction of this road. 2. Water Access: WA SD's proposal to connect to City of Meridian water for domestic and fire protection provide for the construction of a 12' water main in the right-of-way of Ustick Road along the entire southern boundary of your client's parcel, so your client will have direct access to water. 3. Sewer Access: WASD is not obligated to expend public funds to extend sewer lines to a parcel that is not impacted by its development. If your client would like to have sewer lines run to its parcel, then it needs to pay the cost of extending them. Again, as set forth in the email from Matt Adams, WASD is willing to cooperate by granting your client an easement to allow your client to construct a sewer line extension during WASD's construction of the high school. Otherwise, your client can deal with the property owner to the north of your client's parcel (Acclima) to obtain sewer access from the north. That is your client's choice, but WASD will not expend public funds for your client's benefit when there are reasonable alternatives for your client to obtain sewer access to its parcel in the future. Again, Highway 16 has not been constructed, and there is no definitive guideline on when it will be constructed. is a result, the assumptions being made here are all speculative and may never actually occur. Should the construction of Highway 16 occur and result in a "taking" of your client's property, it will not result in a total take given the access that your client will have to construct roads and connect utilities. In summary, the easements that WASD is willing to consider granting address any reasonable issues that your client has with access to roads, water and sewer to its parcel; however, WASD is not willing to, nor is it obligated to, "foot the bill" for extending access and services to your client's parcel to make it development -ready. Obviously, the proposals set forth herein and in the June 13, 2018 email from Matt Adams are subject to agency comment and approval and are also subject to the approval of my client's board of trustees. If our clients can reach a mutually acceptable arrangement that will not result in additional expense to WASD, I suggest that we attempt do so as soon as possible. Please Geoffrey M. Wardle July 10, 2018 Page 4 let me know if your client is interested in obtaining these easements for the construction of its future development. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, FOLEY FREEMAN, PLLC Mark Freeman mfreeman@foleyfreeman. com MSF/klh cc: Client