Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments�E IDIAI�N*-- IL / January 17, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council CC: City Clerk, Justin Lucas, File FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner RE: Castle Rock (AZ-07-016, PP-07-020, PUD-07-001) Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Joe Borton Charles Rountree David Zaremba The staff report for Castle Rock reflected a recommendation of approval of the proposed project with conditions of approval. The Planning Commission heard the Castle Rock project on December 6, 2007. At the hearing, the Commission made a recommendation of denial to the City Council. The main reasons for denial are as follows: 1) The majority of the Commission felt that the proposed density of the plat does not meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and that a step up in density to R-8 is too high for this area; and, 2) The Commission would like to see larger lots along the perimeter of the subdivision, especially adjacent to the Black Rock ridge area. Since the Commission hearing, the applicant has submitted a revised plat, dated 12/21/07, in response to the Commission's concerns. Staff has reviewed the revised plat and offers the following comments: • Lot Size/Number: Larger and fewer lots are now depicted along the south, west, southeast, and northwest boundaries of the plat. The original plat consisted of 847 buildable lots; the revised plat consists of 789 buildable lots. • Open Space: The open space that was originally shown at the rear of the lots along the south boundary has been removed and other open spaces areas have been reduced in size. The original plat consisted of 22.8% (41.6 acres) of open space; the revised plat consists of 21.3% (38.84 acres) of open space. • Density: The overall density of the original plat was 4.65 dwelling units per acre; the overall density of the revised plat is 4.33 dwelling units per acre. [The density of the area designated for Low Density Residential uses was originally 4.48 dwelling units per acre (excluding Black Rock); the revised plat depicts a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. ] Although Staff has not performed a comprehensive review of the revised plat, these appear to be the major changes that are not reflected in the staff report. jAN 1 2008 January 14, 2008 City of Meridian Meridian City Council RE: AZ 07-016 of Providence Development Group LLC RECEIVED im 15 MN - City ®f Meridian p1masng Department I am the owner of 5616 S. Graphite Way Lot 17 Block 1 Blackrock Subdivision #1. The proposed Castlerock Development will be contiguous to my property. Hubble Homes, aka Providence Development aka Blackrock Developers made the 44 lot subdivision of the above mentioned Lot zoned RR. This project lays out nicely with the beautiful rural area that surrounds the subdivision. In looking at the aerial view provided by Planning and Zoning this proposed project would be out of place. It would not be to the betterment of the City of Meridian to approve a high density project in a rural setting. The zoning should be a maximum R-2 with low density standards. I hope you will decline this high density project and maintain integrity of the area by December 3, 2007 Bill Parsons Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 660 East Watertower Lane Suite 202 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Settlers Square AZ-07-018 , PP-07-021, ALT-07-016 Dear Bill: City Of Meridian City Clerk Office On behalf of our client Bob Runyan of Seagle Three LLC, 5999 W. State Street, Suite A, Boise, Idaho 83703, we would respectfully request a continuation of our application(s) hearing from December 06, 2007 to December 20, 2007, in order to properly post the property as required. Please let us know if this is agreeable so that we can have the signs made up as soon as possible with the correct hearing date. We apologize for this late correspondence and hope that we will be able to be placed on the agenda for December 20, 2007. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Respectfully, Barbara Mason, MPA, Planner Treasure Valley Engineers Alan Christy, Planner V Treasure Valley Engineers Treasure i4affey Engineers, f��w. Phone: (208) 4F3-0�05 204 6'' Street Per ;Varr, a: idaho S3687 I-ax. (208) 4633-.43 i STATE OF IDAHO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAWRENCE G. WASDEN November 16, 2007 VIA E-MAIL The Honorable Bill Killen Idaho House of Representatives wkillen@ctcweb:net Re: Our File No. 07-21192 — Annexation Dear Representative Killen: 5 2007I �E!! City Of Meridim City Clerk Office This letter is in response to your request for a copy of any Attorney General's opinion which has been written regarding Category A annexations at the request of a property owner outside of a city's area of impact. Two letters on this subject were written by this office for a client last year. We hoped to provide you copies but were unable to receive a waiver of the attorney -client communication privilege. Enclosed, instead, for your consideration, are two memorandums on this issue penned by private law firms. You will note the authors reach opposite conclusions. As you stated, the plain language of Idaho Code § 67-6526 is that "[suubject to the provisions of section 50-222, Idaho Code, an area of city impact must be established before a city may annex adjacent territory." While it may be argued that it makes lithe sense to require the establishment of an area of impact only to allow annexation outside of that area, the fact is Idaho Code § 50-222 does not explicitly state that annexations may be made only from within the area of impact. It simply states that an area of impact must be established. It is interesting to note that, prior to 2002, Idaho Code § 50-222 explicitly allowed annexation "only if the land is lying in the area of city impact as determined by procedures contained in section 67-6526." In 2002, Senate Bill 1391 ("S1391 ") repealed Idaho Code § 50-222 entirely, replacing it with a new section 50-222 that does not contain this language, makes no reference to Idaho Code § 67-6526, and states that "[cjities have the authority to annex land into a city upon compliance with the procedures required in this section. Further, S1391's Statement of Purpose declares into a city shall follow the procedures applicable to the category of land' Idaho Code § 50-222(9) (emphasis added). See also Idaho Code § 50-222(5): Annexation of lands (emphasis added) s as established by this section." Intergovernmental $ Fiscal Law Division R.O. Box 33720, Boise, Idaho 83720-0010 Telephone: (208) 334-2400, FAX: (2M 854-808, Located at 700 W_ State Street Joe It Wdlia ms Building, 4th Floor Representative Killen November 16, 2007 Page 2 of 2 that `[u]niess all owners consent or unless a parcel is surrounded by a city (a general description of a category A annexation], cities would be required to develop annexation plans ...." From this statement, an inference may be made that if all owners consent or the parcel is already surrounded by the city, an annexation plan concerning that parcel is not required. That conclusion, however, would be in conflict with the assurances given by Representative Gagner, who presented amended Senate Bill 1391 to the House Local Government Committee, that "(t]his legislation does not allow new annexation outside the area of impact".2 Since the question of whether a city may annex territory outside of its area of impact has not been resolved by an Idaho court, it is not possible to know, with certainty, the answer. Given the differences of opinion concerning this issue, it is certain that the answer to this question could be clarified through legislation. I hope that this letter, with enclosures, is responsive to your request. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, I H E. TO ANSKI Deputy Attorney neral MET/mdw Enclosures Memorandum from Stephanie Bonney and Susan Buxton, dated 8/17106 Memorandum from Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, undated 2 Minutes of House Local Government Committee meeting, March 4, 2002. Pau Paul, Hattlnps, Juefskr & Waker tUaPaul, 515 South Flower Sheet - 251h Floor - Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 ATTORNEYS telephone 213 683 6000 • facsimile 213 6270705 - www.paulhastingswrn MEMORANDUM Issue: Does S 67-6526' (the "Area of Impact Statute"), when read in conjunction with § 50-222 (the "Annexation Statute"), precluded cities from annexing property outside of their Areas of Impact. Short Answer: The Area of Impact Statute precludes cities from annexing property outside of their Areas of Impact because: 1) when the Annexation and Area of Impact Statutes are read in pall mateda4 the legislative intent to limit cities' ability to annex only within Areas of Impact is clear; 2) the Annexation and Area of Impact Statutes must be read in harmony and allowing annexation outside Areas of impact would be contrary to the purpose of orderly and rational planning and annexation.; and 3) the two statutes relate to the same subject matter, so the more specific statute, the Area of Impact controls over the more general statute, the Annexation Statute. Analysis The question presented is whether Idaho cities may annex property outside of their Areas of Impact. Pursuant to the Annexation Statute, there are three categories of annexation: (a) Category A: Annexations wherein all private landowners raise no objection to annexation, or annexations of any residential enclaved lands of less that [than] one hundred (100) privately -owned parcels, irrespective of surface area, which are surrounded on all sides by land within a city or which are bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by lands for which owner approval must be given pursuant to subsection (5)(b)(v) of this section, or which are bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by the boundary of the city's area of city impact. (b) Category B: Annexations wherein: (i) The subject lands contain less than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where not all such landowners have consented to annexation; or (u) The subject lands contain more than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where landowners owning more than fifty percent (501/o) of the area of the subject private lands have evidenced their consent to annexation at the outset of the annexation process; or (iii) The lands are the subject of a development moratorium or a water or sewer connection restriction imposed by state or local health or environmental agencies; provided such lands shall not be counted for purposes of deternuning the number of separate private ownerships and platted lots of record aggregated to determine the appropriate category. (c) Category C: Annexations wherein the subject lands contain more than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record 1 all statutory references are to the Idaho Code. LEGAL —US W # 53,450716.1 TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department. Error! Style not defined Page 2 and where landowners owning rn,,re than fifty- percent (50%) of d-e area of the subject private lands have not evidenced their consent to annexation at the outset of the annexation process. S 50-222(3)(a)-(c), The Annexation Statute clearly states that property- to be annexed n ust be within the Area of impact. Annexations for categories B and C require that "the land are contiguous or adjacent to the city and lie within the city's area of city impact." % 50-222(5)(b), (c)(i). Moreover, some voluntary annexations (category A) must be "boullded on all sides by lands within a city and by the boundary of the cities area of city- impact." j 50-222(3) (a). However., cities are making an argument that some properties within category A need not be within a city*'s Area of Impact because the first sentence of J 50-222(3)(a) states "Annexation where all private landowners raise no objection to annexation, pr. . ." Thus, they argue, the last .line of that section, which refers to Areas of Impact, does not apply to those properties. They, argue that, per y 50-222(5)(a), properties where all private landowners agree to be annexed need only be "lying contiguous or adjacent to any city in the State of Idaho," Such an interpretation allows cities to annex property which is contiguous to city limits but not in an Area of Impact, and even allows annexation of property that is located in another city's Area of Impact. This interpretation of the statutory language is absurd given the rules of starutoq construction, the intent of the Idaho Legislature, and sound planning and zoning principles. "Statutes are in pars material if they relate to the same subject. Such statues are construed together to effect legislative intent. Where two statutes appear to apply- to the same case or subject matter, the specific statute will control over the more general statute." Gooding County;,. Wybeqa, 46 P.3d 1$ (Id. 2002) (internal citations omitted), The Annexation Statute and the Area of Impact Statutes are obviously related since they both relate to the rational development and annexation of property into cities, and as discussed below, the Area of Impact Statute is more specific. They must be read together. and construed as one systezu. .5� Crty af.Sandpoins a Sandpoint Irdependent.I-fighrvay Dis&ict 879 P.2d 1078, 1083 (Id. 1994). The Areas of Impact Statute clearly states that "Subject to the protzsions of section 50-222, Idaho Code, an area of city impact must be esrablished -before a city= may annex adiacent terxitorv," 67-6526(a). in other words, so long as the procedures of §50-222 are followed a cit y can annex contiguous property within its Area of Impact. This phrase does not mean that the Area of Impact Statute is subordinate to the Annexation Statute, because to do so would cause an unharmomous readings of the statutes. If the cities' interpretation were to stand, then the Area of Impact Statute would be meaningless fox all properties where the landowner wanted to be annexed into a city. However, landowner choice of jurisdiction is not the purpose of these statutes: the purpose is to provide rational and orderly development which ensure adequacy of public facilidies and stops leapfrog growth. If the Legislature was not concerned about disorderly growth and leapfrog development then it would not have gone to the trouble of adopting the .Area of Impact and Annexation Statutes. LEGAL` J5_ W » 53450716. i TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Error! Style not defined. Page 3 It should be noted that in Comr D Akne Industrial Park Property Oumers Assn v. Cif of Cower D'tllene, 702 P.2d 881 (Id. 1985), the court held that a city's power to annex was not conditioned upon compliance with the Local PIanning Act, including the Area of Impact Statute. The annexation law under consideration in that case did not once refer to Areas of Impact or state as its purpose orderly development and efficiency of provision of public services. In 1995, the Legislature changed §50-222 to specifically mention areas of impact and require cities to comply with the procedures in the Area of Impact Statute: On and after January 1, 1995, any land lying contiguous or adjacent to any city in the state of Idaho, or to any addition or extension thereof may be annexed by the city only if the land is lying in the area of city impact as determined by procedures contained in section 67-6526... If a city has not adopted an area of city impact prior to January 1, 1995, the city shall not be prohibited from annexing adjacent territory if an area of city impact has been adopted in accordance with the provisions of section 67-6526 prior to annexation and all other requirements for annexation have been met. You have to assume that the Idaho Legislature knew about the CoeurDAlene case and prior construction when it changed the Annexation Statute. "The court has declared that the mere fact that the legislature enacts an amendment indicates that it thereby intended to change the original act by creating a new right or withdrawing an existing one... It has been held that it can be presumed that [the Legislature] was aware of the prior construction of the term in questions in the original act and deliberately limited the scope of the new act." 1A SUTHERLjND STATUTORY CONSTRUCnON § 22:30 (6 h ed.). Therefore, the Idaho Legislature specifically changed the Annexation Statute to incorporate the terms of the Areas of Impact Statute. A word of caution, however, because the 1995 statute also stated (immediately after the above quoted section) that "An owner of land of any size may request that the tract of land be annexed into the city whether the land is or is not contained in the city's area of impact by submitting such request in writing to the city council." One might interpret this as following from the previous sentence such that although any landowner may request annexation into the city, the city cannot take cannot take action until the city, first, adopts the area of impact that includes the subject property. However, an alternative interpretation might be that voluntary and involuntary annexation are to be treated differently for purposes of Areas of Impact. However, this rationale does not comport with the policies underlying rationale growth and orderly provision of infrastructure, as discussed further below. We discuss the 1995 revision because it is the first amendment that makes mentions of the Area of Impact Statute. The Annexation Statute was amended to its current form (with some minor amendments not relevant to this discussion). Though the cities might argue that voluntary annexation did not have to be in the Area of Impact in the previous rendition of the statute, nor do they here. However, this argument is erroneous, because, unlike the 1995 statute, in its current form, annexations are separated into 3 categories (cited above), but the categories are not simple breakdowns of voluntary and involuntary annexations. Category A includes 100% voluntary and island annexations, Category B includes involuntary annexations, LEGAL_US_W # 53450716.1 TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Error! Style not defined. Page 4 voluntary annexations, and land which are subject to development moratoria, and Category C includes an involuntary annexation. Category B, which includes a type of voluntary annexation is required to be in the Area of Impact §50-222(5)(b)(i). Thus, there is not differentiation based on whether it is voluntary or involuntary. This makes sense since the issues, as discussed further below, is one of orderly development and service provision, not of landowner choice. The declared purpose of the Annexation Statute is to assure orderly development of cities "to allow efficient and economically viable provision of tax-supportcd and fee -supported municipal services, to enable the orderly development of private lands which benefit from cost-effective availability of municipal services in urb-=i-g areas and to equitably allocate the costs of public services in management of development on the urban fringe." §50-222(1). In other words, the Legislative intent of the statute was to ensure that lands on the fringe can be provided with municipal services by the city annexing that property. This purpose is consistent with the Area of Impact Statute which requires that cities and counties negotiate area of impact and determine whether the city's or county's ordinance will apply or if a mutually agreed upon plan and ordinances will apply. The Area of Impact Statute recognizes that planning must be regional. Municipalities are not isolated Enclaves, far removed from the concerns of the region in which they are situated. As subdivisions of the state, they do not exist solely to serve their own residents, and their land use decisions are required to promote the general welfare, both within and outside their boundaries. KOPPELMAN & MERRIAM, REGIONAL GENERAL WELFARE: THE END OF A TREND?, § 2.01 (Zoning and Eminent Domain, Matthew Bender, 1985). It is through proper statutory delegation of this power that the state's subdivisions are empowered to enact land use regulations. Id. Indeed, regional planning is so important that §50-1306 requires counties to transmit subdivision plats to cities if the property to be subdivided is within 1 mile of the city limits, even if no Area of Impact has been adopted. The city review may include utility systems and drainage provisions. This makes sense because Ada County is the only county that has adopted Areas of Impact, yet the state wants to require regional cooperation and provision of infrastructure. This concept is further set forth in sections of the Planning and Zoning Statute (Chapter 65, Tide 67). §67-6502 states: The purpose of this act shall be to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the state of Idaho as follows. ... (b) To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the people at reasonable cost. (c) To ensure that the economy of the state and localities is protected. (d) To ensure that the important environmental features of the state and localities are protected. LEGAL_US_W # 53450716.1 TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Error! Style not defined. Page a (f) To encourage urban and urban -type development within incorporated cities. �50-222(5) (a) states that upon finding that a property proposed for annexation meets the requirements for Category A, a. city may initiate planning procedures for such property in accordance with Chapter 65, title 67 (the Planning and Zoning Statute). If a City were allowed to annex properties under Category A that were not in an Area of Impact, then any such planning for those properties would be contrarq to the purposes of the PLuinmg and Zoning Law because there would be no assurance of adequate public facilities, protection of environmentally sensitive lands or compact and contiguous development, and the city's economy may be endangered by the need to spend excessive sums on new infrastructure. This would be a disharmonious reading of the statutes. Reading these statutes together, it becomes clear that cities U-i Ada County cannot annex property outside its area of impact, lest the purpose and intent of the entire plaraiing and annexation process in the Courity be thwarted. Moreover, the Area of Impact Statute is the most specific statute that must apply for all annexations in those counties that have .Areas of Impact. The Annexation Statute sets forth die general guidelines for annexation for all counties, regardlc» of whether they have adopted Areas of Impact. However, for Ada County, which has adopted Areas of Impact, the Area of Impact statute must overly the Annexation Statute, so as not to frustrate the purpose of the statute. MOORE SMITH B UXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AND CoUNSELORS A? LAW 9'0 W. T3anricek Straet, St74tr 520; t3oaSx, 117 83702 i9iPPH01VE: (208) 3,3x-1800 FAx: (208I 33T-1202 www.msbtlaw.co-m ST)MRANNI f. 8QWEV SUSAN F- B1,XWN' Tl3HN I. MCFA,DMN`Y N410iAE. C_ MOOxei o,` Coun.�,e1 FAUL J. FPTZER BRUCF. M1 , Sntr M " Also admitted in Oregon PAUTA. EuRcx& tAlao admitted in Washington "roxvy A. ZOKA-hr ° Also admitted in South Dakota `Ak.k� admitted in��cs�•Mexico NEI TOTL&NDUNI TO: City of Eagle FROM: Stephanie J. Bonney, Susan E. Buxton DATE: 8/17/06 RE: Legal Analysis of An _Iaexation Outside the Area of Impact The City has asked our office to conduct a legal review of the opinion issued by California attorney, Paul Hastings, on behalf of Ada County, which declares that cities cannot annex outside their area of impact. Issue:.Does Idaho Code §67-6526 (the Area of Impact Statute), when Tread in conjunction with §50-222, (the Annexation Statute) preclude cities from annexing property outside their areas of impact? Mr. Paul Hastings has issued an opinion on behalf of Ada County that declares property owners cannot voluntarily annex property into a city if the property lies outside of a city's area of impact. Mr. Hastings' analysis is flawed and his opinion incorrect. Mr. Hustings' opinion relies on several incorrect .interpretations and assumptions about Idaho law. First, he claims when Titles 55 and 67 are read in conjunction, the legislature intended to limit cities' ability to annex only within impact areas. His assertion ignores the fact that neither statute contains any language to that effect. The only limitation that Title 67 imposes on a city_ 's ability to annex is a requirement that the city have established an area of city impact, Such a requirement is clearly an incentive to each city to establish an area of impact. 'Title 67 does not require that a city establish an area of impact covering all land that the city may annex, In fact, §67-6526 specifically identifies §50-222 as providing the procedures and limitations for W-irzexation. Yet Mr. Hastings erroneously argues that the plain language of the statute cannot actually mean what it says and limits the justification for his conclusion on §67-6526 to the exclusion of §50-222. His only justification for his position is that reading Titles 67 and 50 together would be `inharmonious" is that it somehow thwarts rational and orderly development. N[r. Hasting never explains why city planning of property next to its own boundaries contributes to disorderly development. A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that where a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, courts are constrained to follow that plain meaning, and neither add to the statute nor take away Annexation Memo August 18, 2006 Page 2 by judicial construction.] In fact, where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to the statute as written, without engaging in statutory construction.2 Titus, Mr. Hastings' arguments concerning statutory construction are not relevant as the language in §67-6526 clearly and plainly states that annexations are governed by the controlling annexation statute, §50-222. Additionally, Section 50-222 was amended in 2002, several years after the adoption of Title 67. Thus §50-222 is the most recent legislative statement on annexation, another significant fact ignored in Mr. Hastings. Section 50-222 divides annexations into 3 categories. The first category, category A, is comprised of voluntary annexations or "island" annexations. A category A annexation is either voluntary by unanimous consent; or enclaved property surrounded by city land, by city land and fair/recreation land, or by city land and a city impact area. A voluntary annexation is "wherein all private landowners raise no objection to annexation." Since "voluntary," the legislature imposed minor procedures for voluntary annexations. indeed, a city's decision approving such annexations is not subject to judicial review. Thus, §50-222 applies no additional limitations on voluntary annexations and does not require that the property lie within a city's area of impact. Section 50-222 makes a clear distinction between voluntary and involuntary annexations. Unlike the simplified procedure and review for voluntary annexations covered in category A, the statute explicitly provides that category B and category C annexations be treated differently. While the legislature could have explicitly applied additional requirements, including an area of impact requirement, to category A annexations, it did not. Statutory construction requires that such an obvious omission not be considered a mere oversight, but the statute be read to render the omission meaningful.' Mr. Hastings argues that Category B also addresses voluntary annexations. Again, Mr. Hastings ignores the plain language of the statute, which states that Category B annexations are those annexations where the city does not have the consent of all the landowners.' Such a distinction between voluntary and involuntary annexations is further supported by the 2002 amendment to the annexation statute. The annexation statute was amended because property owners complained to the legislature about a perceived abuse of power by cities in regards to involuntary annexations. Accordingly, the legislature added additional restrictions and procedures for involuntary annexations. The legislature was not concerned with voluntary annexations, which was the basis for their statement in the 1995 rendition of §50-222 which reiterated that voluntary annexations did not have to lie within the area of impact. Furthermore, the legislature has always been concerned with the property rights of individuals. The passage of ' Ca=LWOrcrest/Columbus Action Committee v. City Of Boise, 136 Idaho 666, 670, 39 P.3d 606,610 (2001). 2 State V. Rhode, 133 Idaho 459, 462, 988 P,2d 685, 688 (1999); State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654, 659, 978 P.2d 214, 219 (1999); State v. Escobar, 134 Idaho 387, 389, 3 P.3d 65, 67 (Ct.App.2000) 3 Fletcher v. Gifford, 20 Idaho 18, 26, 115 P. 824, 826 (1911). 4 Category B also addresses annexations on land subject to moratoriums, which is not at issue in this analysis. Annexation Memo August 18, 2006 Page 3 §50-222 was intended to give additional property rights to individuals in the annexation process. Mr. Hastings' reading of §50-222, which would prevent a landowner from voluntarily annexing property into a city, further limits a property owners rights in annexation, in contravention of the legislature's intent in amending the statute Mr. Hastings recognizes that the declared purpose of the annexation statute is to assure orderly development of cities, which is summarized as ensuring "that lands on the fringe can be provided with municipal services by the city annexing that property." Yet, he then attempts to distort this declared purpose to argue that the statute must be read in such a way that counties have the unilateral power to prevent cities from annexing and planning for property located directly on their boundaries when the landowner asks for such a service from the city. He further argues that having counties control growth on city boundaries is the only way to ensure orderly and rational development. Of course, such an argument is not supported by any of the basic principles in land use planning and directly contradicts the legislature's stated purpose in passing §50-222. In summary, Mr. Hastings' analysis ignores the plain language of the relevant statutes, and instead opines on his interpretations of legislative intent. Mr. Hastings fails to recognize that if a statute is clear in its language, legislative intent is irrelevant. Furthermore, even if legislative intent were relevant, Mr. Hastings has not provided legislative history or legislative arguments related to the passage of either statute. Instead, he argues that the area of impact statute controls annexation, despite its direct reference to §50-222 as providing the provisions for annexation, and despite the passage of the current version of §50-222 several years after the passage of Title 67. Notwithstanding his arguments to the contrary, Mr. Hastings' declarations regarding planning principles and his interpretations of legislative intent cannot change the language of the statutes. Neither Title 67 nor 50 requires that voluntary annexations be allowed only within a city's area of impact. Having cities plan for and provide services to the property contiguous to their boundaries with the permission of the landowner does not thwart basic principles of planning and development, but instead embraces both private property rights and the legislative goal that fringe properties be provided with municipal services. NOV 2 6 2007 ^ MERIDIAN November 23, zoc'7 City of Meridian Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission RE: AZ 07-016 OF PROVIDENCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC. We are the owners of 2156 E. Hyper Dr., Lot 18 Block 1 Blackrock Subdivision. We purchased tlis property from some of the same people as the developers of Castlerock Subdivision that are currently in front of you now. We purchased irl Blackrock Subdivision, in Ada County with RR Zoning knowing that it is country surrounded by farms and existing acreages. In Planning and Zoning's office is a tentative plat showing the subject property surrounding Blackrock is R2 Zoning. We request that zoning remain in LOW DENSITY residential district according to the unified Development Code, Title II, Chapter 2 of District Regulations of minimum property size of 12,000 square footage lots with minimum street frontage prevails of 80 feet along with all other R-2 standards and Castlerock's R-8 Zoning is declined so this area may keep it's current aesthetics and rural flavor. The R-8 Zoning would be devastating to the Blackrock Subdivision which is already in place based upon Ada County RR Zoning and proposed R-2 Meridian Zoning. downgrading to R-8 Zoning goes against all appraisal "sales comparison approach" valuation methods to keep land and building values in substantial conformity in the surrounding subject properties. Examples of what I mean are if Castlerock R-8 is approved Blackrock's adjacent neighbors backyard to backyard will be as follows: ..Remember this is the same developer on the same piece of ground... page 1 -BLACKROCK -CASTLEROCK -LOT SIZE 29,185 SQ TT -6,482 SQ fT OR LESS STREET FRONTAGE 175 FEET 29 FEET LOT VALUE $240,000.00 $40,000.00 DWELLING SQ FT. 3500 SQ FT 900 SQ FT TO 2400 SQ FT GARAGE 4 CAR PLUS 2 CAR EXTERIOR SIDING Massive Brick, Stone, Stucco Vinyl Siding w/minimal accents DWELLING & LOT VALUES $800,000.00 TO $1,500,000.00 $120,000-$240,000.00 DENSITY 1.5 RESIDENCES /ACRE 4.66 RESIDENCES/ACRE Blackrock's Architectural Control Committee is administered by Hubble Homes and theirs assigns, and they are rigorous standards that million dollar homes should have. If castlerock subdivision is approved with the same connecting streets and backyards to backyards and some side yard common lot lines, vinyl siding, minimum stone and stucco should not be al lowed. accents, minimum landscaping standards It's just not good planning and its not right to do to the existing neighborhoods! Please reject Clstelrock's application for R-8 zoning. Respectfully Submitted, Larry E. Wickham Debbie L. Wickham page 2 �&o ,beevf RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2007 1 City Clerk Office kc_ LA S S � g . t, � ✓� � �' -_i Y_5 c- o d p we- — ilv -v ►-e :. m 0 u y r v^ f m_ c..Pe-x in s �2o , �� .._ ec I e . +L,a -1- , s aC, G o rwc 5 e i dt c� ,.S << i ► �� !/•� o tt� C2.i t- vvey-- o !'� kn yea .. {' n u r c c s e-A 0 i V i t rs k M cyt E 2: r-1 V Q �S',f k2'N."Y� / I J /` <D a✓, r �' ✓1/1 Q Ny/ 7"1 V�� C t e QV4 n 4 v b � -- 1C ✓sSZv► �-►'e S�tw►e_�ZSK�s tK w�eo �QD ,eve aye a�v eQ Severer(- tit►ti�l- --m a! U Ci 1 K V►�1 e r j Lrs re d u w e � V► � c� er+eci n wl _ 4,.r.ct �. yrt � .-,'� ; g eaS.4A -e tc 1(� -kv' over ©_:�C3.,__1.1.vV_�..i.` _�-...�.�..._1�'i�Y'�,5 Y✓�c `'trh�t� i.�.,� a a � � _a a•i d Ise �v► m�..��1 Y�m w �' � . ..Wk i E,LYe-- cJ �� �• i t 2-& a lc �tve v Y it,- i_ v,%. y r�-sJ c S uv.t d �(v �:�— �? Cat •, January 11, 2008 RECEIVED AN 1 1 2008 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office City of Meridian Meridian City Council RE: AZ 07-016 OF PROVIDENCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC. I am the owner of 2156 E. Hyper Dr., Lot 18 Block 1 Blackrock Subdivision. I purchased this property from some of the same people as the developers of Castlerock Subdivision that are currently in front of you now. We purchased in Blackrock Subdivision, in Ada County with RR Zoning knowing that it is country surrounded by farms and existing acreages. In Planning and Zoning's office is a tentative plat showing the subject property surrounding Blackrock is R2 Zoning. We request that zoning remain in LOW DENSITY residential district according to the unified Development Code, Title II, Chapter 2 of District Regulations of minimum property size of 12,000 square footage lots with minimum street frontage prevails of 80 feet along with all other R-2 standards and Castlerock's R-8 Zoning is declined so this area may keep it's current aesthetics and rural flavor. The R-8 Zoning would be devastating to the Blackrock Subdivision which is already in place based upon Ada County RR Zoning and proposed R-2 Meridian Zoning. downgrading to R-8 Zoning goes against all appraisal "sales comparison approach" valuation methods to keep land and building values in substantial conformity in the surrounding subject properties. Examples of what I mean are if Castlerock R-8 is approved Blackrock's adjacent neighbors backyard to backyard will be as follows: .Remember this is the same developer on the same piece of ground... page 1 BLACKROCK CASTLEROCK T SIZE EET FRONTAGE T VALUE LELLING SQ FT. 29,185 SQ FT 175 FEET $240,000.00 3500 SQ FT 6,482 SQ FT OR LESS 29FEET $40,000.00 900 SQ FT TO 2400 SQ FT GARAGE 4 CAR PLUS 2 CAR EXTERIOR SIDING Massive Brick, Stone, Stucco Vinyl Siding w/minimal accents DWELLING & LOT VALUES $800,000.00 TO $1,500,000.00 $120,000-$240,000.00 DENSITY 1.5 RESIDENCES /ACRE 4.66 RESIDENCES/ACRE Blackrock's Architectural Control Committee is administered by Hubble Homes and theirs assigns, and there are rigorous standards that million dollar homes should have. If Castlerock Subdivision is approved with the same connecting streets and backyards to backyards and some side yard common lot lines, vinyl siding, minimum stone and stucco accents, minimum landscaping standards should not be allowed. It's just not good planning and its not right to do to the existing neighborhoods! Please reject Castelrock's application for R-8 zoning. Respectfully Submitted, Larry E. Wickham page 2 HOME ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1166 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1166 — -. rfulcher@overarch.com t� Idaho State Senate SENATOR RUSSELL M. FULCHER Honorable Mayor of Meridian and Meridian City Council Members: OFFICE ADDRESS STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 83720 BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0081 (208) 332-1340 FAX: (208) 332-1422 rfuIcher@idaho.senate.gov CITY OF MERIDIAN MAYOR'S OFFICE Jan. 15, 2008 This letter is in regard to the Castle Greens Hubble development project on Eagle Road between Amity and Lake Hazel. I represent this area in the State Legislature. Also, my family and I own adjacent property to the north and east of this project. It was my intention to attend your Jan. 22 City Council meeting to comment on this project. Unfortunately, I will be in legislative meetings during this time. Please accept these comments as my testimony: Annexations outside planned areas of impact, such as this, cause developmental inconsistencies and other problems. In this specific instance, placing some -800 homes in a field surrounded by rural areas (as this development will do) exacerbates already strained infrastructure, transition, and growth problems. Eagle Road and the traffic congestion and safety problems associated with it would be at the top of this list of problems This type of development does not match the area or the long-term plan for Meridian Since this property is outside the area of city impact, legal questions arise. Idaho code is conflicted as to whether or not annexations such as this are legal. Should this annexation occur and later be legally challenged, the city of Meridian and taxpayers that I represent may be exposed to the risk of such actions. To validate this point, I have attached supporting documents from the Idaho Attorney General's office along with opinions drafted by two different private law firms. On a related note: Myself, as well as ten other legislative colleagues and five individuals representating city and county government (including one member from the City of Meridian), are working to clarify the conflict in Idaho code stated above. We are committed to working with you to support changes necessary so that tools are available for local governments in high growth areas to plan and operate. It is my request that you continue to use wise and fair judgment in city expansion practices. Sincerely, Russell M. Fulcher State Senator WWW.STATE.ID.US/LEGISLA`T/LEGISLAT.HTML STATE OF IDAHO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAWRENCE G. WASDEN November 16, 2007 VIA E-MAIL The Honorable Bill Killen Idaho House of Representatives wkillen@ctcweb:net Re: Our File No. 07-21192 — Annexation Dear Representative Killen: This letter is in response to your request for a copy of any Attorney General's opinion which has been written regarding Category A annexations at the request of a property owner outside of a city's area of impact. Two letters on this subject were written by this office for a client last year. We hoped to provide you copies but were unable to receive a waiver of the attomey-client communication privilege. Enclosed, instead, for your consideration, are two memorandums on this issue penned by private law firms. You will note the authors reach opposite conclusions. As you stated, the plain language of Idaho Code § 67-6526 is that "[suubject to the provisions of section 50-222, Idaho Code, an area of city impact must be established before a city may annex adjacent territory." While it may be argued that it makes little sense to require the establishment of an area of impact only to allow annexation outside of that area, the fay is Idaho Code § 5v-222 does not explicitly state that annexations may be made only from within the area of impact. It simply states that an area of impact must be established. It is interesting to note that, prior to 2002, Idaho Code § 50-222 explicitly allowed annexation "only if the land is lying in the area of city impact as determined by procedures contained in section 67-6526." In 2002, Senate Bill 1391 ("S1391 ") repeated Idaho Code § 50-222 entirely, replacing it with a new section 50-222 that does not contain this language, makes no reference to Idaho Code § 67-6526, and states that "[c]ities have the authority to annex land into a city upon compliance with the procedures required in this section." Further, S1391's Statement of Purpose declares Idaho Code § 50-222(1) (emphasis added). See also Idaho Code § 50-222(5): Annexation of lands Into a city shall follow the procedures applicable to the category of lands as established by this section." (emphasis added) Intergovernmental & Fiscal lanr Division P.O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-oot 0 Telephone (208) 334-2400. FAX (2M 854-8081 Located at 700 W Stale Street Joe R. WdJiams Building, 4th Floor Representative Killen November 16, 2007 Page 2 of 2 that "[unnless all owners consent or unless a parcel is surrounded by a city [a general description of a category A annexation], cities would be required to develop annexation plans ...." From this statement, an inference may be made that if all owners consent or the parcel is already surrounded by the city, an annexation plan concerning that parcel is not required. That conclusion, however, would be in conflict with the assurances given by Representative Gagner, who presented amended Senate Bill 1391 to the House Local Government Committee, that "[tjhis legislation does not allow new annexation outside the area of impact"-2 Since the question of whether a city may annex territory outside of its area of impact has not been resolved by an Idaho court, it is not possible to know, with certainty, the answer. Given the differences of opinion concerning this issue, it is certain that the answer to this question could be clarified through legislation. I hope that this letter, with enclosures, is responsive to your request. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, 91Hi E: TQ A�Y��� N S K I Deputy Attorney dolnerai MET/mdw Enclosures Memorandum from Stephanie Bonney and Susan Buxton, dated 8/17/06 Memorandum from Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, undated 2 Minutes of House Local Government Committee meeting, March 4, 2002. PaulHastings F2ul, Haaungs, Janots" & Wafker ur 515 South Flower Sheet - 25th Floor • Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 ATTORNEYS telephone 213 683 6000 - facsimile 2136270705 • www.paulhastings.com MEMORANDUM Issue: Does S 67-65261 (the "Area of Impact Statute"), when read in conjunction with § 50-222 (the "Annexation Statute"), precluded cities from annexing property outside of their Areas of Impact. Short Answer: The Area of Impact Statute precludes cities from annexing property outside of their Areas of Impact because: 1) when the Annexation and Area of Impact Statutes are read in parr material, the legislative intent to limit cities' ability to annex only within Areas of Impact is clear; 2) the Annexation and Area of Impact Statutes must be read in harmony and allowing annexation outside Areas of Impact would be contrary to the purpose of orderly and rational planning and annexation.; and 3) the two statutes relate to the same subject matter, so the more specific statute, the Area of Impact controls over the more general statute, the Annexation Statute. Analysis The question presented is whether Idaho cities may annex property outside of their Areas of Impact. Pursuant to the Annexation Statute, there are three categories of annexation: (a) Category A: Annexations wherein all private landowners raise no objection to annexation, or annexations of any residential enclaved lands of less that [than] one hundred (100) privately -owned parcels, irrespective of surface area, which are surrounded on all sides by land within a city or which are bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by lands for which owner approval must be given pursuant to subsection (5)(b)(v) of this section, or which are bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by the boundary of the city's area of city impact. (b) Category B: Annexations wherein: (i) The subject lands contain less than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where not all such landowners have consented to annexation; or (ii) The subject lands contain more than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and inhere landowner owning more than fifty percent (501/o) of the area of the subject private lands have evidenced their consent to annexation at the outset of the annexation process; or (1ii) The lands are the subject of a development moratorium or a water or sewer connection restriction imposed by state or local health or environmental agencies; provided such lands shall not be counted for purposes of determining the number of separate private ownerships and platted lots of record aggregated to determine the appropriate category. (c) Category C: Annexations wherein the subject lands contain more than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record 1 All statutory references are to the Idaho Code, LEGAL —US W # 53450716.1 TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Error! Style not defined. Page 2 and where landowners owning inole than fifty- percent (50%) of d:.e area of the subject private lands have not evidenced their consent to annexation at the Ourset of the annexation process. j 50-222(3)(a)-(c). l'he Annexation Statute clearly states that property to be annexed trust be within the Area of Impact, Annexations for categories B and C require that "the land are contiguous or adjacent to the ciry and lie within the city's area of city impact." g 50-222(5)(b}, (c)(i). Moreover, some voluntary annexations (category A) must be "bounded on all sides by lands within. a city and by the boundary of the cit ,9 area of city impact." C, 50-222(3)(a). However, cities are making an argument that some properties within category A need not be within a ciws Area of ,Impact because the first sentence of § 50-222(3)(a) states `Annexation where all private landowners raise no objection to annexation, gr..." Thus, they argue, the last line of that section, which refers to Areas of Impact, does not apply to those properties. They argue that, per y 50-222(5)(a), properties where all private landowners agree to be annexed need only be "lying contiguous or adjacent to any city in the State of Idaho." Such an interpretation allows cities to annex property which is contiguous to city limits but not in an Area of Impact, and even allows annexation of property that is located in another city's Area of Impact. This interpretation of the statutory language is absurd given the rules of statutory construction, the in of the Idaho Legislature, and sound planning and zoning principles. "Statutes are in Pari material if they relate to the same subject. Such statue: are construed together to effect legislative intent. Where two statutes appear to apply- to the same case or subject platter, the specific statute will control over the more general statute." Gooding County a Wybenga, 46 1'.3d 18 (Id. 2002) (interval citations omitted). The Annexation Statute and the Area of Impact Statutes are obviously related since they both relate to the rational development and annexation of property into cities, and as discussed below, the Area of Impact Statute is more specific. They must be read together a.nd construed as one System, ,SW Cary of _Sandpoins t: Sandpoint Irctependent 7fighway District, 879 P.2d 1078, 1083 (Id. 1994). The Areas of Impact Statute clearly states that "Subject to the provisions of section 50-222, Idaho Code, an area of city impact must be esrablishea efore a c c t_ t F Mav annex ad acent r� �° j, rritorv, � 6 7--652G (a). In other words, so long as the procedures of §50-222 are followed, a city can annex contiguous property within its Area of Impact. This phrase docs not mean that the Area of Impact Statute is subordinate to the Annexation Statute, because to do so would cause an unharmonious readings of the statutes. Tf the cities' interpretation were to stand, then the Area of Impact Statute would be meaningless for all properties where the landowner wanted to be annexed into a city. However, landowner choice of jurisdiction is r_ot the purpose of these statutes: the purpose is to provide rational and orderly development which ensure adequacp of public facilicies and stops leapfrog growth. If the Legislature was not concerned about disorderly growth and leapfrog development then it would not have gone to the trouble of adopting the Area. of Impact and Annexation Statutes. LEGA1_JS_ W » 53450776. t TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Error! Style not defined, Page 3 It should be noted that in Coeur D Akne Industrial Park Properly Owners Assn v. Cit} of Coeur D 141ene, 702 P.2d 881 (Id. 1985), the court held that a city's power to annex was not conditioned upon compliance %ith the Local Planning Act, including the Area of Impact Statute. The annexation law under consideration in that case did not once refer to Areas of Impact or state as its purpose orderly development and efficiency of provision of public services. In 1995, the Legislature changed §50-222 to specifically mention areas of impact and require cities to comply with the procedures in the Area of Impacr Statute: On and after January 1, 1995, any land lying contiguous or adjacent to any city in the state of Idaho, or to any addition or extension thereof may be annexed by the city only if the land is lying in the area of city impact as determined by procedures contained in section 67-6526... If a city has not adopted an area of city impact prior to January 1, 1995, the city shall not be prohibited from annexing adjacent territory if an area of city impact has been adopted in accordance with the provisions of section 67-6526 prior to annexation and all other requirements for annexation have been met. You have to assume that the Idaho Legislature knew about the Coeur D Ahne case and prior construction when it changed the Annexation Statute. "The court has declared that the mere fact that the legislature enacts an amendment indicates that it thereby intended to change the original act by creating a new right or withdrawing an existing one ... It has been held that it can be presutned that [the Legislature) was aware of the prior construction of the term in questions in the original act and deliberately limited the scope of the new act." lA SUTRERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 22:30 (6" ed.). Therefore, the Idaho Legislature specifically changed the Annexation Statute to incorporate the terms of the Areas of Impact Statute. A word of caution, however, because the 1995 statute also stated (unmediately after the above quoted section) that "An owner of land of any size may request that the tract of land be annexed into the city whether the land is or is not contained in the city's area of impact by submitting such request in writing to the city council." One might interpret this as following from the previous sentence such that aldiough any landowner may request annexation into the city, the city cannot take cannot take action until the city, first, adopts the area of impact that includes the subject property. However, an alternative interpretation might be that voluntary and involluntaxy annexation are to be treated differently for purposes of Areas of impact. However, this rationale does not comport with the policies underlying rationale growth and orderly provision of infrastructure, as discussed further below. We discuss the 1995 revision because it is the first amendment that makes mentions of the Area of Impact Statute. The Annexation Statute was amended to its current form (with some minor amendments not relevant to this discussion). Though the cities might argue that voluntary annexation did not have to be in the Area of Impact in the previous rendition of the statute, nor do they here. However, this argument i erroneous, because, unlike the 1995 statute, in its current form, is are separated into 3 categories (cited above), but the categories are not simple breakdowns of voluntary and involuntary annexations. Category A includes 1000/0 voluntary and island annexations, Category B includes involuntary annexations, LEGAL_LS W # 53450716.1 TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Error! Style not defined. Page 4 voluntary annexations, and land which are subject to development moratoria, and Category C includes an involuntary annexation. Category B, which includes a type of voluntary annexation is required to be in the Area of Impact §50_222(5)(b)(i). Thus, there is not differentiation based on whether it is voluntary or involuntary. This makes sense since the issues, as discussed further below, is one of orderly development and service provision, not of landowner choice. The declared purpose of the Annexation Statute is to assure orderly development of cities "to allow efficient and economically, viable provision of tax -supported and fee -supported municipal services, to enable the orderly development of private lands which benefit from cost-effective availability of municipal services in urbanizing areas and to equitably allocate the costs of public services in management of development on the urban fringe." §50-222(1). In other words, the Legislative intent of the statute was to ensure that lands on the fringe can be provided with municipal services by the city annexing that property. This purpose is consistent with the Area of Impact Statute which requires that cities and counties negotiate area of impact and determine whether the city's or county's ordinance will apply or if a mutually agreed upon plan and ordinances will apply. The Area of Impact Statute recognizes that planning must be regional, MunIcIPalities are not isolated enclaves, far removed from the concerns of the region in which they are situated. As subdivisions of the state, they do not exist solely to serve their own residents, and their land use decisions are required to promote the general welfare, both within and outside their boundaries. KOPPELMAN & MERRIAM, REGIONAL GENERAL WELFARE: THE END OF A TREND?, § 2.01 (Zoning and Eminent Domain, Matthew Bender, 1985). It is through propstatuto delegation of this power that the state's subdivisions are empowered to enact land ury se regulations. to Indeed, regional planning is so important that §50-1306 requires counties to transmit subdivision plats to cities if the property to be subdivided is within 1 mile of the city limits, even if no Area of Impact has been adopted. The city review may include utility systems and drainage provisions. This makes sense because Ada County is the only county that has adopted Areas of Impact, yet the state wants to require regional cooperation and provision of infrastructure. This concept is further set forth in sections of the Planning and Zoning Statute (Chapter 65, Title 67). §67-6502 states: The purpose of this act shall be to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the state of Idaho as follows: ... (b) To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the people at reasonable cost. (c) To ensure that the economy of the state and localities is protected. (d) To ensure that the important environmental features of the state and localities are protected. LEGAL_US_W # 53450716.1 TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Errot! Style not defined. Page S *x* (0 To encourage urban and urban -type development within incorporated cities. �50-222(5)(a) states that upon finding that a property proposed for annexation meets the requirements for Category A, a city may initiate planning procedures for such property in accordance with Chapter 65, title 67 (the Planning and Zoning Statute). If a city were allowed to annex properties under Category A that were not in an Area of Impact, then any such planning for those properties would be contrary to the purposes of the Planning and Zoning Law because there would be no assurance: of adequate public facilities, protection of environmentally sensitive lands or compact and contiguous development, and the city's economy may be endangered by the need to spend excessive sums on new infrastructure. This would be a disharmonious reading of the statutes, Reading these statutes together, it becomes clear that cities in Ada County canxrr()t annex property outside its area of impact, lest the purpose and intent of the entire planning and annexation process iri the Countv be thwarted. Moreover, the Area of Impact Statute ir5 the most specific statute that must apply for all annexations in those counties that have .Areas of Impact. The Annexation Statute sets forth the general guidelines for annexation for all counties, regardicss of whether they have adopted Areas of Impact. However, for Ada County, which has adopted Areas of Impact, the Area of Impact statute trust overly the Annexation Statute, so as not to frustrate the purpose of the statute. MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED A' roRK EYs AND couvSELORS AT LAw 95� W. Bannock Stf"et, Su'tk— 520, BOISF, rD 83702 TELEPHONE: (208) 33I-18o0 FAX: (208) 331-1202 www,mabtlaw.corn srupm".N;6J. BONR'EY SSUSAN E. BI'moN` Tazm ). MCPAnn(:.�v� MKIIAEL C4 MOO= Of CounAe[ PAULJ. FMEB BRucE N1. Smrm ' A180 admitted in (]regon PALLA. YLRCXV =Also admitted in WashingtCrt 'r.kNwY A. ZOO& ° Also admitted in South Dakota ' Aka admitted in .N'I 7Ne)zco MF.IMO A:NDUM TO: City of Eagle FROM: Stephanie 1. Bonney, Susan E. Buxton DATE: 8 17!06 RE: Legal Analysis of .Annexation Outside the Area of Impact The City has asked our office to conduct a legal review of the opinion issued by California attorney, Paul Hastings, on behalf of Ada County, which declares that cities cannot annex outside their area of impact. Issue:.Does Idaho Code §67-6526 (the Area of Impact Statute), when read in conjunction with §50-222, (the Annexation Statute) preclude cities from annexing property outside their areas of impact? Mr. Paul Hastings has issued an opinion ()n behalf of Ada County that declares property owners cannot voluntarily annex property into a city if the property lies outside of a city's area of impact. Mr. Hastings' analysis is flawed and his opinion incorrect. Mr. Hastings' opinion relies on several incorrect interpretations and assumptions about Idaho law. First, he claims when Titles 55 and 67 are read in conjunction, the legislature intended to limit cities' ability to annex only within impact areas. His assertion ignores the fact that neither statute contains any language to that effect. The only Limitation that Title 67 imposes on a citv's ability to annex is a requirement that the city- have established an area of city impact. Such a requirement is clearly an incentive to each city to establish an area of impact. Title 67 does not require that a city establish an area of impact covering all land that the city may annex, In fact, §67-6526 specifically identifies §50-222 as pro-viding the procedures and limitations for annexation. Yet Mr. Hastings erroneously argues that the plain language of the statute cannot actually mean what it says and limits the justification for his conclusign on §67-6526 to the exclusion of §SO-222. His only justification for his position is that reading Titles 67 and 50 together would be ' inharmonious" is that it somehow thwarts rational and orderly development. Mr, Hasting never explains why city planning of property next to its own boundaries contributes to disorderly development. A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that where a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, courts are constrained to follow that plain meaning, and neither add to the statute nor take awav Annexation Memo August 18, 2006 Page 2 by judicial construction.] In fact, where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to the statute as written, without engaging in statutory construction.2 Thus, Mr. Hastings' arguments concerning statutory construction are not relevant as the language in §67-6526 clearly and plainly states that annexations are governed by the controlling annexation statute, §50-222. Additionally, Section 50-222 was amended in 2002, several years after the adoption of Title 67. Thus §50-222 is the most recent legislative statement on annexation, another significant fact ignored in Mr. Hastings. Section 50-222 divides annexations into 3 categories. The first category, category A, is comprised of voluntary annexations or "island" annexations. A category A annexation is either voluntary by unanimous consent; or enclaved property surrounded by city land, by city land and fair/recreation land, or by city land and a city impact area. A voluntary annexation is `wherein all private landowners raise rto objection to annexation." Since "voluntary," the legislature imposed minor procedures for voluntary annexations. Indeed, a city's decision approving such annexations is not subject to judicial review. Thus, §50-222 applies no additional limitations on voluntary annexations and does not require that the property lie within a city's area of impact. Section 50-222 makes a clear distinction between voluntary and involuntary annexations. Unlike the simplified procedure and review for voluntary annexations covered in category A, the statute explicitly provides that category B and category C annexations be treated differently. While the legislature could have explicitly applied additional requirements, including an area of impact requirement, to category A annexations, it did not. Statutory construction requires that such an obvious omission not be considered a mere oversight, but the statute be read to render the omission meaningful.' Mr. Hastings argues that Category B also addresses voluntary annexations. Again, Mr. Hastings ignores the plain language of the statute, which states that Category B annexations are those annexations where the city does not have the consent of all the landowners.' Such a distinction between voluntary and involuntary annexations is further supported by the 2002 amendment to the annexation statute. The annexation statute was amended because property owners complained to the Iegislature about a perceived abuse of power by cities in regards to involuntary annexations. Accordingly, the legislature added additional restrictions and procedures for involuntary annexations. The legislature was not concerned with voluntary annexations, which was the basis for their statement in the 1995 rendition of §50-222 which reiterated that voluntary annexations did not have to lie within the area of impact. Furthermore, the legislature has always been concerned with the property rights of individuals. The passage of ' Ca—VNorcrest/Columbus Action Committee v. City Of Boise, 136 Idaho 666, 670, 39 P.3d 606, 610 (2001). z State v. Rhode, 133 Idaho 459, 462, 988 P.2d 685,688 (1999); State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654, 659, 978 P.2d 214,219 (1999); State v. Escobar, 134 Idaho 387, 389, 3 P.3d 65, 67 (Ct.App.2000) 3 Fletcher v. Gifford, 20 Idaho 18, 26, 115 P. 824, 826 (1911). 4 Category B also addresses annexations on land subject to moratoriums, which is not at issue m this analysis. Annexation Memo August 18, 2006 Page 3 §50-222 was intended to give additional property rights to individuals in the annexation process. Mr. Hastings' reading of §50-222, which would prevent a landowner from voluntarily annexing property into a city, further limits a property owners rights in annexation, in contravention of the legislature's intent in amending the statute Mr. Hastings recognizes that the declared purpose of the annexation statute is to assure orderly development of cities, which is summarized as ensuring "that lands on the fringe can be provided with municipal services by the city annexing that property." Yet, he then attempts to distort this declared purpose to argue that the statute must be read in such a way that counties have the unilateral power to prevent cities from annexing and planning for property located directly on their boundaries when the landowner asks for such a service from the city. He further argues that having counties control growth on city boundaries is the only way to ensure orderly and rational development. Of course, such an argument is not supporter) by any of the basic principles in land use planning and directly contradicts the legislature's stated purpose in passing §50-222. In summary, Mr. Hastings' analysis ignores the plain language of the relevant statutes, and instead opines on his interpretations of legislative intent, Mr. Hastings fails to recognize that if a statute is clear in its language, legislative intent is irrelevant. Furthermore, even if legislative intent were relevant, Mr. Hastings has not provided legislative history or legislative arguments related to the passage of either statute. Instead, he argues that the area of impact statutc controls annexation, despite its direct reference to §50-222 as providing the provisions for annexation, and despite the passage of the current version of §50-222 several years after the passage of Title 67. Notwithstanding his arguments to the contrary, Mr. Hastings' declarations regarding planning principles and his interpretations of legislative intent cannot change the language of the statutes. Neither Title 67 nor 50 requires that voluntary annexations be allowed only within a city, s area of impact. Having cities plan for and provide services to the property contiguous to their boundaries with the permission of the landowner does not thwart basic principles of planning and development, but instead embraces both private property rights and the legislative goal that fringe properties be provided with municipal services. RECF JAN 1 1 2008 January 11, 2008 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office City of Meridian Meridian City Council RE: AZ 07-016 of Providence Development Group LLC I am the owner of 2156 E. Hyper Dr., in Blackrock Subdivision and my property and subdivision will be contiguous to the proposed Castlerock Development. I hope you will decline this high density project with lots as small as 29 feet in width and a density of 4.66 residences per acre. My reasoning is simple and obvious, and I believe you will be able to immediately see this if you will pull up an aerial view of this area. This area is farms, acreages and typical Idaho farm ground serviced by 2 lane country roads. My subdivision is 44 lots, mostly of acre building lots zoned RR, the subject land if it is annexed should be a maximum of R-2 with low density standards per Title II Chapter 2 of District Regulations with 12000 sq. ft. lots keeping the integrity of this beautiful rural area. We have the same person who is selling the large expensive building lots in Blackrock, now asking to break this adjoining property into small building lots with minimum size homes... I believe there needs to be continuity and consistency to these 2 neighborhoods. Hubble Homes, aka Providence Development aka Blackrock Developers, should be held to a consistent development/building program that is good for all who live in that area of Meridian. Meridian City Planners are hard at work on development decisions that will impact our City's future and we ask that this beautiful rural area of South Meridian not be allowed to be broken into this High Density project. Thank you for your consideration, (Z�l V� Debbie Wickham JAN 14 2008 City of Meridian y1j 2�a S- City Clerk Office Ci%�y t~ T ✓-Ie-YI,j14Lt 4 f ����-���� A Z 07 - o 16 velt�tna�y rq5 i L k to 31 G'' re h'i r,. ' ' ei $iC D"a L le ✓ 7 � 4- 'If 5 k e- d `-e, 17 Gi.vc�-eK mr� '���� ►'G G��� C�zvC-IC;)o '1_s d`t �v� sue ►. J1L /a S � S 'P. v l�, ✓4- 1 ✓i�l U i'l L Y[ S $ 7 o w v ie i. L i 0 r-t to r'fl - d v' n4 ,e Q c ct; .A \% U L rl LL v e Gt G :t s LiJrC e �d 7 r 11/fit$ l 'j% �J bvx k-HA l , ,I ` ) i L ti OI G�tSci�sS�� �1ie Gt� v�'YSg ve- ctsurl ✓�.e•' CJe.oe(a)onle 1,t L�"lits 'tveel C✓ �tld helve s'�t C1-� �Je cYi t-l1e dm ✓�� L H r ec.l et)_So Sri Tat �Y_c� � u Z � r jL^Z✓e �i ✓ ✓i r? w �@ �� i-� �, L ��Y GL e've s A l r - /L+ it tZ li i v`�M1• L1 iiI L' 2 i'. 'Tr2 C i 1 rJ C.> v ,e o tp i In e J n G N S C{ e �C J V� a c� ) vt �j r i y j`� c't C e &k,i�s arc, Kd %llttve ��/erne�;vez 1 J 11 t� � av'iic �zK � 1r2s� c'�L D�t- ' is ✓reItee ✓ dv' r410 GL�� LVtZ VtAf 1LCc�S Q>tit c�rv�'alnlp:s�re.1 yelS Jw-fr cz �Sc /uL't/�� itsflzi yt Cvoov �e.� � Y''e�ads�sv �' one ��►- ws �t�••�t i S�1,.ta� 1s _ ✓Kectiie.�i ca�'e j i 14 Ceased a' d e u e✓ J rn t Ytec S 1 ra Y1 a -j--a xi 6t4v e t.v, J7� 4a ; � C V,-- e-s eo_r cc 4L #-.e t ff �4 I s h eL !:9 C C �YY2 d �.i '� S�1,)t S j& W 7 m yr Cl ,t rxvt:Y tke I�st �f�cLrs, zvea.�td /r�Jre� i7�e Saryre the iv ��� exlolair, fir; h� � d .•. !_. _ . _. , .. � � _� ,,,, `� H P /IVY' Lj. S 4c he+ L. �� III nlll, II flldll�i!I'�U°I::I If �ii!!I II'I°I PIPII„II IJllill 1111111�7i!!II!I'L"G;i I,II""' IIIIII IIIIIII I IIII III ��I a Ilullll�, ,Illlllq �� IIII �I,:n p„Illllulp� �In �II" �II�� nll III IIII III r I I nnlnpullll II I I I I Il,�i, III ih II III II (IIIIIII I; i III I I'' III. �.r;l f' II„�Il�i' f! IIII II II IIII II Irrlrlllllllll II II nll 1p rll llilrrrllllllll rllll nr rlllllll I I Uggl fllllllllllllllli. (IIII I I Illl i!,!I;,�i. ., I I ,U Lnrl�r,,,V Vlb!!!.ru'u�lcllaa�o�!r;, III tl AO' III I IJ I nnl I IIIIIIIIIIII npp"' IIII III I f I I I I I I IIIIIpIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInIUlppll' I III ullll II n �hn III III, ,I„III �LI.I .II'.iII"Ial (IIIIIII I I I I 1IIolu III ,iIIAI@!' Ij;llle�ll"I;;;II"P, nll �I, I Iglu ICI' .dllNlG 4� 'Polllllp II'_h7a:rl€:s Roun'tt", David Zaremba Z-14 FACSIMILE COVER SHEE'PtE U f T FE!2727 0 085 JTv OF MERIDIAN "--"T r` CLFRK OFFfCF To: Fax Number: From. jonv� Wednesday, February 27, � Date: 1911108 Return Fax #: 208-888-6854 Pales Including Cover Sheet: a Planning Department . 660 E. Watertower Street, Suite 202, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884.5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 , www.meridiancitv.oro February 28, 2008 III II' IIIII:II' II'Irrl I"Illn 111 Irl' Ij uI fl�l Ir Illll.i Intl' III14nIA il�rwl'.III II III IIIInII'.IIIIIAIII FEB 2 7 2008 Nanning of DepartmMeridian ent City of Meridian Planning and Zoning RE: AZ 07-016 of Providence Development Group LLC , E, C. I am the owner of 2156 E. Hyper Dr., in Blackrock Subdivision and my ct r,- 2a property and subdivision will be contiguous to the proposed Castlerock Development. GFry CIF MERV AN I hope you will decline this high density project with lots as small as 29 feet in width and a density of 4.66 residences per acre. My reasoning is simple and obvious, and I believe you will be able to immediately see this if you will pull up an aerial view of this area. This area is farms, acreages and typical Idaho farm ground serviced by 2 lane country roads. My subdivision is 44 lots, mostly of acre building lots zoned RR, the subject land if it is annexed should be a maximum of R-2 with low density standards per Title II Chapter 2 of District Regulations with 12000 sq. ft. lots keeping the integrity of this beautiful rural area. We have the same person who is selling the large expensive building lots in Blackrock, now asking to break this adjoining property into small building lots with minimum size homes... I believe there needs to be continuity and consistency to these 2 neighborhoods. Hubble Homes, aka Providence Development aka Blackrock Developers, should be held to a consistent development/building program that is good for all who live in that area of Meridian. Meridian City Planners are hard at work on development decisions that will impact our City's future and we ask that this beautiful rural area of South Meridian not be allowed to be broken into this High Density project. As they have made no significant changes since this development was last turned down by Planning and Zoning, I believe this proposal should also be turned down. Thank you for your consideration, Debbie Wickham RECE -D FM 2 7 2008 P'aninng eparttment February 28, 2008 City of Meridian Meridian Planning and Zoning RE: AZ 07-016 OF PROVIDENCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC. I am the owner of 2156 E. Hyper Dr,, Lot 18 Block 1 Blackrock Subdivision. I purchased this property from some of the same people as the developers of Castlerock Subdivision that are currently in front of you now. FEB t` r tk6$ GIT Y OF MERIDIAN We purchased in Blackrock Subdivision, in Ada County with RR Zoning knowing that it is country surrounded by farms and existing acreages. In Planning and Zoning's office is a tentative plat showing the subject property surrounding Blackrock is R2 Zoning. We request that zoning remain in LOW DENSITY residential district according to the unified Development Code, Title II, Chapter 2 of District Regulations of minimum property size of 12,000 square footage lots with minimum street frontage prevails of 80 feet along with all other R-2 standards and Castlerock's R-8 Zoning is declined so this area may keep it's current aesthetics and rural flavor. The R-8 Zoning would be devastating to the Blackrock Subdivision which is already in place based upon Ada County RR Zoning and proposed R-2 Meridian Zoning, downgrading to R-8 Zoning goes against all appraisal "sales comparison approach" valuation methods to keep land and building values in substantial conformity in the surrounding subject properties. Examples of what I mean are if Castlerock R-8 is approved Blackrock's adjacent neighbors backyard to backyard will be as follows: ..Remember this is the same developer on the same piece of ground... page I BLACKROCR CASTLEROCK LOT S12E 29,185 SQ FT 6,482 SQ FT OR LESS STREET FRONTAGE 175 FEET 29 FEET LOT VALUE $240,000.00 $40,000.00 DWELLING SQ FT. 3500 SQ FT 900 SQ FT TO 2400 SQ FT GARAGE 4 CAR PLUS 2 CAR EXTERIOR SIDING Massive Brick, Stone, Stucco Vinyl Siding w/minimal accents DWELLING & LOT VALUES $800,000.00 TO $1,500,000,00 $120,000-$240,000,00 DENSITY 1.5 RESIDENCES /ACRE 4.66 RESEDENCES/ACRE Blackrock's Architectural Control Committee is administered by Hubble Homes and theirs assigns, and there are rigorous standards that million dollar homes should have. If Castlerock Subdivision is approved with the same connecting streets and backyards to backyards and some side yard common lot lines, vinyl siding, minimum stone and stucco accents, minimum landscaping standards should not be allowed. As they have made no significant changes since this development was last turned down by Planning and Zoning, I believe this proposal should also be turned down. It's just not good planning and its not right to do to the existing neighborhoods! Please reject Castelrock's application for R--8 zoning. Respectfully Submitted, Larry E. Wickham ,Qpri 1 6, Hoag a►1 �0 t�y �OLLV�Ci l 4 I�� �- �a b,- t'c l Foo E. S u Z t ve, RECEIVED APR 0 8 2008 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office ��raup > L L C 1�cck s C)wv�z�-S o Sacres i+� t��e 1�(Pptano Subcltvts ��� it�e ►'► A.�'e GL G©vurn�n . de Veb��Hdav� Ltr,�� .t11e pra�vse,� C'��se, Rock (crrvte,+�f' . �ue �� �l� 1c�e.c:.tl��n a►�d SeZe. b� C'as�le R o,.,/C-, 51��.tld 1" he bu►1t� ts's�ur 9!ual��y d� i�"fieU ��fe x rc va N Zvt✓� ►-�e 1 v� o rma � ZLe � � G� e-14CL 4 S u a 1 c Wl Ge �! v►G ill �e vl ["�nar eo -i,-y Yc, 12c�c.�< c�ea:el� ►z,��, �, t S t Al �cr ®(.v vi e,Y'S hat �. Y'�. e e ► ve d �'�►e i'1 u vxev S �u b It _ L, e ;� ►-, y Ytc`�t e t r, eA4ve �, ber , ©0�7 a �► d c� �l►e►-� �/ T C��" yl C� �' , � t JC a �'r c� r► . �/�t��U, i�l fit, V' � / p d � � � Cti�.vvie��s ��ol�.Vhs etw y(,,kjj he / er s0V7s ;, t w'as foss,,,/e �.ew►w�e��s i.��e yeee;veJ 0"i flit oss►'6;)"v- o GL ►cp�� c�evts;�, -- low t�tee�wt� 1,a�cs� P r C b � c:�ev�Im�w►.E�� Plnced jh t'i1 �t N, °� 5 t S Lt tidev S i wee Zhe �1ama�� 1?► �) u�►d i sz�a�61� �� Mack /iOoc� cle��Cvprne..��s C v� I���v Su 6J uI'sic c,vKe clue c ►�a.�uve . L� t�u� Ye�ra.�-d� -t-�,f �;�e.s�(� lock c� l OK tC 11CL � er dr -"fie GGi-CCL av A 4c v j ,z b i �Ndde-1 Yus11 tc c�ci,►e�e, fac�».i� w►�X�� �t�ctsth y we a V^ehoc Ve- t-1 .-6 i rk V V r 00Ye a- , �'►�e�-�►cne.I Dt �� �lke�e t s u 1s� the /civ�� —77 �S ,�� cide,selz/Dvne►� ��►ce� ka►vnes, /4L466)-e ri i7 �L S ci. V e r `� 1 ct, v- r 5 �,�. 6 d a � t s/� ,-�, � vz-t ,� �. � c ►' f 6, o n S, 11 GY,.,e- e eL /� \A h e- a o bI, .o�meKt use I ( cc 12`t►�a �-�,I� %��.ve � �s �v��� I r+ S,t� 0 ct n+ v► d t v; d i c a J ©b "'t` k p e rS e ✓e YJ Y►evt`za ��=rS�� nP%e Lu�►o i%D�V ttie way Gi 1�Eau h �J, t Vi u S 6-1 1v►e.ruzsed fYu��� ✓Iv+se �Kd 1 + L > t,/1 c1u.a Is GtYe i7�� 1 j sfehe�. �S u S' �ies�tcli �LiC- y G �e11r t%fews kNi•rVt�l ! S tb✓Du� � Gti u%�cry�e y, J r`� � �i2. C (! 12 � vti � � "� �l Y' e. � Ye OL { � i -e•, � N 1i. � Q CY ll 1 ' � t � `,`• s t �.; � iN ` � � � tr Q „� �' � u I 1 `� to _� b � ;� i -�-- a � i^e � a + Y► I ",-� 8I�.ck RUeti �uSC�e l�YeevtS '7i�'ar�oSw) t�i �dC'� a�+(v J-►vc.csI�T I.t v�cI►� l`Yt u G 11 yvt crE C�CC e� dab I e . NO W. ) ��Cs '.e.. � e�,Y-o���e u ►� � Gt �0 a.r� � � Y'a�.►� t 1� v s e � � ��L�e L' �iUw� ✓►� 4c � � �y .�vCm I" q Y'e {tee inS r -Z ?�jah Qv%� tlPYC Po� s ��s�c� Rork D),'.elop:�C a c ern L r vi s 1 -� j c� ; t ►mot c e be t�, �t Ye D u s e !� e cI e5, -.0 Ali, �1 ✓h�Ac.� ��h ea ��:H tNQ COrYIVYILLVIi, ®b aC'oZ�'Cc� K aK� as harf � % �� p PianOki .t�e �ctvne �?ra�oer�y vev Vea,vs ��v "Ie otlere workrh� wE i ACL. Co /� I C-I 4x 11 �. LI ►1 d e Y S t0. K Yl a u �� 2 �� c 4 / 5 w;-�,►;,� �'t�e C �� 1 , ,-7L3 a iIer' —rilr_.S was -e"%`�l aCeoYvA 1,s��c� 6r�hq 1�e D cteYe t?m;n»��s� le ci � �w� � S Gl. �je.� l r ,%► 5 (e -LL e_ awn e r O UU wtv O.+ o� e i,-H vi t>v Ived W 0e'vtAe-rSl► , `10 �PVe- VIA s C�- C 0 le to y Cap wtuh� ;iY►�ene•-a)� a�' z��k�f �as {�e�,-, fs,yi eoPI GL CC J lO�nP IDS ou /S a &l►e cieu4a'Im�o.e,rs . 1-tf"�c�s•e t � arm / S tAaJ- cc rhAih. tidrtt - ( foc 8 Qd �i 1^O !NI Cc2 s t ! S C' m yyt l a�e�+ y ► e ✓e w P /i "le t l�Yl u, c � G1 v'e.� ) e-� �- , ►-i, U(i �, Ll-�. /�a �- k � u +� 1e:s s � � e� �.,►-s � � m e tee, �oL4.s��� LcIt V- Joe, �Ir,��cd theYe a �5d. h Q 5 bee- VI Wt t-c 2�S a K cr, r, �"' ►1 a� a A-vn i'e > t � w►a ho C � 1 yt �G`ngvz r 14oWe.�zr) -pYof>(,Sec� n c�e�'e %��me►� s j S e aS `Qsi4e- Rock Stm'�d �, � LV,��+�,►-, � �cL C P�Qvt 0.�� ��t WS 1, c o � y • � �- h. S t'�'u a'�"i on L � e Cem t s PAX te ��,��%� �reCed� ah/ d eve)v�4k)4ew`E Iry ioosa,l 'fie►-e , PN . C�I��Ipv-e heh@,veJ �i1a�►Ia,.�� �J�e C'asi%e �c beIv► reve Sr,�►-�c i �i e. � S 5 � `, pi � e v► e.. U .,,L �. S c,�, wi w► u� � � w-a,�.� f � ✓e- e �� � ec s , z �; �' � cc�' �' �, e h,y�, Qub61��e1� ���� r p i s co vvt.�p le C t� Yaeke v w I I-Iti ac �d• Mee" � h ro vwes at, ►-earl r ,^ l a c A 1 �' c-P b-p-rw �a�,,.1 e ldt�;aaa.00 �r cier b � � I4c&661c --Develapmcal-(4ke Vo,1Iaeed apt 1an.c1 r o� rlc w � � VLCast 1 e �m e,��� VYI kes , `& n e C e sS o o m y ►'� ` law cm�e by"sew s kmus1, pi '"� ►ytaYke�-,wae✓ J C.mVISe5�1,0111yenCt O�ilGh G� O@.CiStO�l, l b� �e.ve IoJome�`� or 5 g &_ Y'e,d Ko j h e C B aYl YY1 �l n � 'C y / N eYe Q re Sq 1 �L�rv►a�', Y'e'E'aj hti✓► L'1n ,'� Ja►-�d a�rea� ,v► `tk�r� �ra,v�n,� u��;� /ess ec�s;� Y C KS kc ker tJa�uc Inmrrties �Deemw�e e�S+ �1�,. ��( less d a CSestY-A le a 1' EYN0.L-/f�a Lt%(9�n ��'tt14,� ye �y a-i leas-t 3 u9e K) A be c� e-Ve-lokers c K ��e ctre0.• Se✓e►-b, d 1 �nuKcly e d GtC-v-ve 6ee►1 Ye'i-(4YKe ck fo `tie pi-e vro,,es mGi9t�f v's t v� thi s AYea(1 ►t, &me C4se a4-&CY a t o � Cleve (o CeeK tPN -rred�. �,•s iN mMr,�ra rmh �as ►-�o f' L�ee� a / S'rrowt bt.�`� does C a era Ve I �q,b fe zt4 du ac l -fK C lost' Z erg /s ®He A /?C --rH a e,4 i n y km , r�,� L� s . L Y2 v� w e cl Q h & , tL / s v S ed 6 %c jlr: aim y f r r �� �`� !4 1s /P 1-o Pc Sa / • %�l ►-rrrt s Zyu k. 1'e pY�Sev� Te d9 ��u able �QvQI o pe.�1� itiaas8- ��-� L PYWe-),A-% LV�GtCmNS VKC��h yso q o u s t n, hi I S hoW cc Y'i-� Ya J aYea.> 1 t WA- s ��-�i O witkivt►� e l� d ►- C4eve�0)0vv►e&"t is CO Pt V 4.� je a�-� C9ve�f«►, i7d��cis.� ��'► tg 5'�a.�Q►-r��h,� r S Vv+eah� � ti, � es'f" a�c�. r s v�o� Y� Qsew �.'as ��� �Zoc,i� �e✓vel� rne,n,� y b �.�,r a, �e h�i n ✓�, �o �' � � �. b c� �° e �-:k -10.Y�i Yt <`4• �it,b1''lCr•KS S ! rieere 1y 00-1 �►brce►us April 2, 2008 TO: Meridian City Council / Planning & Zoning FROM: Monte & Jackie Anderson 1730 E. Suzan Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 RECEIVED APR 0 4 2008 Ait tY Cler1kOf 1ae SUBJECT: Application AZ07-016 Providence Development Group LLC Hubble Development of the Castle Rock Subdivision We own five acres located in the Uppiano Subdivision that is southwest of where the proposed Hubble development is being proposed. It's our understanding the proposed plan consists of 880 homes on 181.11 acres for an overall average of 4.86 homes / acre (including roads, etc.). We also believe that it maybe as high as 8 homes per acre in some parts of the subdivision. We call this low income housing and we strongly believe that this proposed growth due to the amount and type of houses does not support a healthy and strong community for the following five major reasons: 1- Roads are too congested and not designed to handle this amount of growth 2- Increase school requirements which are currently over capacity 3- Property values or future development will be dramatically reduced 4- Quality of life can be impacted with the potential of trespassing & higher crime 5- Agriculture zoning and livestock / irrigation potential conflicts We have nothing against development of property for affordable living. However, we believe that there should be a mix of various housing. Hubble Homes already has precedence in our area where we are watching box style houses being developed that we are sure will be rental houses in the near future. We searched the internet on Hubble Homes and found no favorable comments on the livability of Hubble Subdivisions. This confirmed our views of Hubble Subdivisions and the aftermath that follows. Based on our five reasons above and the precedence Hubble Homes and other low income homes have in our surrounding neighborhoods, we are strongly against this development plan as proposed We would suggest ensuring the roads, schools, property values of neighbors, quality of life and agriculture conflicts are resolved before approval. In addition, we would like to suggest that the development of this land is more mid -range housing to promote a mix of all income levels and affordability. We would also like to suggest architectural standards, lower houses / acre, ability for other builders to purchase lots and build homes that would provide mixed housing. We understand the "country living" will ultimately go away. However, we must manage future growth as responsible citizens, developers and elected political leaders to ensure our infrastructure of roads, schools, property investments, quality of living and zoning does not diminish because of one individual's profits & promises. k�t llog Monte Aridirson 1�1V�.r Llfl� LVlll�lll � .� a a va ✓ Nbv Tara Green From: angie comish [angie.comish( Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:21 To: Tara Green Subject: RE: Meeting tonight To Meridian City Council, My name is Angela Cornish. I am writing to express my support for the Castle Rock Annexation/Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and PUD approval. I attended the Planning and Zoning meeting last month and watched the presentation by Providence Development. li�was impressed with thelproject. It offers an excellent mix of home types and has unique open space features and amenities. I look forward to seeing it developed. I support the Castle Rock Annexation/Zoning, Prelimr I Plat, and PUD approval. Sincerely Angela Cornish 6740 S. Eagle Rd Meridian, ID From: Tara Green[mailto:greent@meridian`city.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:04 PM To: Matthew Ellsworth; angie comish Cc: Jaycee Holman Subject: RE: Meeting tonight If you could send the comments now "Thanks, Tara From: Matthew Ellsworth Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 2:10 PM To: angie comish Cc: Tara Green; Jaycee Holman Subject: RE: Meeting tonight d give the Council extra time to review them. That's a good question. I don't know when the Clerk's office typically finalizes packets for these meetings. I cc'd Tara and Jaycee, and maybe one of them An clarify? Thanks, It Matt Ellsworth Associate City Planner 4/15/2008 Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 208.884.5533 From: angie comish [mailto:angie.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:48 PM To: Matthew Ellsworth Subject: RE: Meeting tonight Matt, I am doing well, thanks! Hey, If I wanted to i point do I need to do it at tonights meeting? Angela Cornish, P. E. Engineering and Waste Solutions, //c 1523 W. Hays Boise, IO 83702 (208) 385-9381 office (208) 870-9495 cell (208) 342-3342 fox .com] on the Caslte Rock project, could I send and email or at this From: Matthew Ellsworth [mailto:ellsworm@meridiancity.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:56 PM To: angle comish Subject: RE: Meeting tonight Angie, Castle Rock's related applications are items411, 12, and 13 on tonight's agenda (.e. it's the fourth project after Department Reports). The meeting starts at 7:00. The full agenda is available on the City Clerks website: Thanks — hope you're doing well. Matt Ellsworth Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 208.884.5533 From: angie comish [mailto:angie.comish Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:19 PM To: Matthew Ellsworth Subject: Meeting tonight Hey Matt, Do you know where Castle Rock Sub is at 4/15/2008 the agenda tonight? Starts at 7 p.m. right? I Thanks, Angela Comish, P. E. Engineed-Mg and Waste Solutions, llc 1523 W. Hays Boise, ID 83702 (208) 385-9381 office (208) 870-9495 cell (208) 342-3342 fox 4/15/2008 HOME ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1166 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680 rfulcher@overarch.com Idaho State Senate SENATOR RUSSELL M. FULCHER Honorable Mayor of Meridian and Meridian City Council Members: OFFICE ADDRESS STATE CAPITOL P.O. BOX 83720 BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0081 rfulcher@senate.idaho.gov (208) 332 1340 FAX: (208) 332 1422 April 14, 2008 First, thank you for your service. I realize you face difficult challenges, and appreciate the sacrifice you make to serve! This letter is in regard to the Castle Greens Hubble development project on Eagle Road between Amity and Lake Hazel. I represent this area in the State Legislature. Also, my family and I own adjacent property to the north and east of this project. I will be unable to attend the public hearing on April 15. Please accept these comments as my testimony: I believe Castle Greens, as proposed, will bring substantial negative consequences to the area. As a result, I remain opposed to this development. My reasoning is the same as I have communicated previously: This type of development does not match the area or the long- term plan for Meridian. Annexations outside planned areas of impact, such as this, cause developmental inconsistencies and other problems. In this specific instance, placing some -800 "high- density/low cost" homes in a field surrounded by rural areas exacerbates already strained infrastructure, transition, and growth problems. Eagle Road and the traffic congestion and safety problems associated with it would be at the top of this list of problems. Please consider rejecting this development and recommending density more compatible with the area that will not place such strain on infrastructure and contribute to the difficulties caused by urban sprawl. On a related note: You may recall that in my testimony dated Jan. 15, 2008 1 pointed out that due to a conflict in state statute, annexations outside negotiated Areas of Impact (like this one) bring about legal questions. Should such an annexation be legally challenged, it is possible that taxpayers could be placed at risk for associated legal fees and/or penalties. Accordingly, I also committed to do what I could to eliminate this conflict in code. Last month I sponsored HB545, which among other things, eliminates this conflict. On March 14, 2008, the Governor signed this bill into law, and on July 1, 2008 it will take effect. On behalf of the people of our city and state, this was the responsible thing to do. I remain committed to working with you to make sure tools are available for local governments in high growth areas to plan and operate in a way beneficial to all stakeholders. I thank you for your work, and encourage your continued use of wise judgment in city expansion practices. Sincerely, Russell M. Fulcher State Senator CC 4/15/08 - Black Rack Subdivision Page 1 of 1 Tara Green From: Sherrie Ewing[sherrie.ewing@ewingcompany.com] Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:24 AM To: Tara Green; Anna Canning Subject: CC 4/15/08 - Black Rock Subdivision City Council Members, Re: Black Rock Subdivision on Eagle Road between Amity and Lake Hazel I am not opposed to the Black Rock Subdivision, what I am opposed to is the traffic that will be generated and the lack of infrastructure ready for it. This weekend PAL Soccer (on Lake Hazel between Eagle and Cloverdale) is having a tournament and Eagle Road is backed up at Victory, Amity and Lake Hazel. Traffic is backed up more than a half of a mile right now and I have seen it backed up for 3/4 of a mile. I am imagining that this traffic will only be a small showing compared to having 800 (plus or minus) homes added to the Eagle Road traffic on a daily basis. I have heard that the developer is going to help fund the traffic light at Victory and Eagle Road. And yes, this will help, but the true problem is going to be at Eagle Road and Amity. Almost all of the traffic from the Black Rock Subdivision will be using Eagle Road, even if they do travel north to the Amity exit, they will turn to Eagle Road to reach the freeway, Boise, a hospital, etc. We also have an LDS church now under construction at Eagle Road and Lake Hazel which will also add to our traffic problems in the near future. Again, I am not opposed to the subdivision, what I am opposed to is the traffic and lack of infrastructure to support it I would like to have the subdivision denied until the roads can accommodate the additional traffic. I would also like to see a lower density housing level to decrease the traffic. Sincerely. Sherrie Ewing 2934 E Lake Hazel Meridian, ID 83642 208-888-7700 4/ 14/2008 Page 1 of l Peggy Gardner From: Justin Thiel (home) orthiel@cableone.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:47 PM REc.Ef To: mayortammy; Charlie Rountree; David Zaremba; Joe Borton, Keith Bird Y ED Subject: Castle Rock Sub APR 15 2a Importance: High 9itypp4mifim city de* 01lico Madame Mayor, City Council Members, It is with deepest regret that I will be unable to attend the public hearing tonight regarding the Castle Rock Subdivision proposal. Please add me to the list of people against the massive project. I suspect you will be making a final decision on the plan tonight and I wish I could be there to express my concerns with the project. I ask that you please take note of the number of people in attendance FOR and AGAINST the proposal. The AGAINST will far outweigh the FOR. From your Mission Statement: Values Customer Service We will respond to customers in a genuine, positive, and timely manner. Interactions will be solution -oriented, where staff meets and exceeds expectations by listening to customers and following through on their concerns. Accountability We understand our role in the organizational team, know our jobs, and accept that each of us is responsible for our own work, choices, and actions. Please keep these ideals in mind as you consider the project. Residents of Meridian, most certainly those of us in S. Meridian, don'ty want this project. It is too big, the "coving" concept is flawed (where are the driveway's?) and it's positioned beneath one of the onl bluffs in the valley that offers views of the Boise Front. That's not to mention that it's Hubble, which has one of the worst reputations in the home building community. Imagine a sea of 800 vinyl -sided homes on just 180 acres beneath an area of the city where 1/2 acre lots go for $225K. We don't position low -end product adjacent to highly valuable product for a reason and I hope you can acknowledge that by voting to deny the proposal. It's your city, it's OUR city, please consider the ramifications of a project of this size and quality. I ask you to ask yourself, would you want this development to go through if you owned property nearby? Castle Rock is the wrong project at the wrong time in the wrong place. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Justin Thiel 2308 E Hyper Dr. Meridian 4/15/2008 Overarch Broadband - E-mail Services Page 1 of 1 lllltlll/lYL7r"!� ".� . r►r►Rzpcp �.� �AkA TO; W-7-4771M �. APR 15 2 C, �008 View Mail ale Next ( INBOX cc Reply' Reply All Forward Delete Move message to... Show Full Headers I Printer View I Add Sender To Address Book From: "Karen Adams" <karenandlee@gmail.com> Attachments SpamShield Pro Actions... Name Type Save View To: "Capell Bonnie" <hcapell@overarch.com> Part 1 text/plain Save Subject: the land below Black Rock Subdivision Part 2 text/html Save Date: Tue 04/15/2008 06:05 PM To Whom it may Concern: We live in the Tuscany subdivision. The roads surrounding our subdivision are inadequate to handle any more traffic. They are in poor repair, the traffic flows very fast around our exits onto Eagle Road, and with constant trucks travelling our roads for construction purposes, it is very unsafe to add more traffic. In some states, it is required that for every upscale neighborhood, there must be some HUD housing in the vicinity (for balance of school & tax base). Is this the case in this area? These proposed dwellings are not in keeping with the very nice homes that already exist. I propose that your planning department take a ride out there and look the situation over. It isn't a paperwork issue. It is a quality of life issue, and a safety issue for all of us who already live here. Sincerely, Lee and Karen Adams Karen Angels may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines Reply J ! Reply All Forward 1 Delete I Move message to... Next I INBOX http://webmail.overarch.com/email/scripts/view.pl?EV 1=12083049361934079 4/15/2008 April 2, 2008 APR 15 20 TO: Meridian City Council / Planning & Zoning lei FROM: Monte & Jackie Ander son 1730 E. Suzan Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 SUBJECT: Application AZ07-016 Providence Development Group LLC Hubble Development of the Castle Rock Subdivision We own five acres located in the Uppiano Subdivision that is southwest of where the proposed Hubble development is being proposed. It's our understanding the proposed plan consists of 880 homes on 181.11 acres for an overall average of 4.86 homes / acre (including roads, etc.). We also believe that it maybe as high as 8 homes per acre in some parts of the subdivision. We call this low income housing and we strongly believe that this proposed growth due to the amount and type of houses does not support a healthy and strong community for the following five major reasons: 1- Roads are too congested and not designed to handle this amount of growth 2- Increase school requirements which are currently over capacity 3- Property values or future development will be dramatically reduced 4- Quality of life can be impacted with the potential of trespassing & higher crime 5- Agriculture zoning and livestock / irrigation potential conflicts We have nothing against development of property for affordable living. However, we believe that there should be a mix of various housing. Hubble Homes already has precedence in our area where we are watching box style houses being developed that we are sure will be rental houses in the near future. We searched the internet on Hubble Homes and found no favorable comments on the livability of Hubble Subdivisions. This confirmed our views of Hubble Subdivisions and the aftermath that follows. Based on our five reasons above and the precedence Hubble Homes and other low income homes have in our surrounding neighborhoods, we are strongly against this development plan as proposed. We would suggest ensuring the roads, schools, property values of neighbors, quality of life and agriculture conflicts are resolved before approval. In addition, we would like to suggest that the development of this land is more mid -range housing to promote a mix of all income levels and affordability. We would also like to suggest architectural standards, lower houses / acre, ability for other builders to purchase lots and build homes that would provide mixed housing. We understand the "country living" will ultimately go away. However, we must manage future growth as responsible citizens, developers and elected political leaders to ensure our infrastructure of roads, schools, property investments, quality of living and zoning does not diminish because of one individual's profits & promises. Monte Anderson Jackie Anderson Barbara Fulcher 5215 S. Eagle Rd. Meridian, Id. 83642 ,,DR 15 2�r�8 I realize this is a re -run of all the past hearings. Our concerns are still t 11 g he same. IU ms challenae the Hubble Homes aka as Providence Development Groun's claim that thev desire to be good neighbors. They keep coming back with the same basic plan, changing nothing, or taking into account the continuous protest to their development. I assume thev are planning on wearing the existing neighborhood down until there is no longer a resistance. (1) The first concern is traffic. We are now in the soccer season. I am assuming there are an additional 200 cars on the Eagle Road that are not there ordinarilv. It is almost impossible to get out of our drive -way. What will an additional 1600 cars added to the traffic pattern do from this proposed development.? (2) The second concern is the density. There is no provision for storage of RVs, boats, narking. etc. They would have to be on street makine clutter an accepted fact. There are no provisions for family life. They have added pocket parks; I assume these are for Playgrounds. These are an ideal provision for drug trafficking or for a place for perverts to hang out. If you read the papers you know we have both. These parks are secluded without any open space. (3) The third concern is the aesthetic effect on our neighborhood. We have beautiful homes gracing the bluff overlooking the area in question. On the flats we have spacious ranch style homes on acreages which border the Hubble property. This is not a campatible combination with high density low income homes. (4) What is acceptable? (a)This development should not even be considered until Eagle Road is widened to accommodate the added traffic. If Hubble Development causes us (Fulchers) unavailability to access Eagle Road, they should build a bridge across Ten Mile Creek so that we have access to their stop light. (b) There should be some storage facility available for those who need it to eliminate the junky appearance. (c)These lots should be large enough to accomodate family supervised back lawns. This cannot be done with 8 houses to the acre. This development should meet with the quality homes that are already in this area. Quality living conditions should predominate over the bottom line of profit for the developer. T hank you for once again hearing our testimony. Barbara Fulcher