HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ - Reconsider Request Approved 7-26-2022 E IDIAN:---
.J A Fi V
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-
0070)
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, (:�VER\1DIAN4.-
FINAL DECISION,AND ORDERI D A H O
Date of Order: June 21, 2022
Case No.: H-2021-0070 (Burnside Ridge Estates)
Applicant: Kimberly-Horn and Associates, Inc.
In the Matter of. Request for(1) for annexation&zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT in
Ada County to the R-2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts and
(2) a preliminary plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family
residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land.
Pursuant to testimony and evidence received regarding this matter at the public hearing before the
Meridian City Council on June 7, 2022, as to this matter, the City Council enters the following
findings of fact, conclusions of law, final decision, and order.
A. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that:
1. The facts pertaining to the 121.29 acres of land ("the Property"), the Applicant's request,
and the process are set forth in the staff report for Case No. H-2021-0070, which is fully
incorporated herein by reference.
2. The Property is not located within the incorporated area of the City of Meridian.
3. The Applicant is requesting annexation of the Property in order to develop a residential
subdivision.
4. The proposed annexation is a Category A annexation under Idaho Code section 50-
222(3)(a).
5. The Property is not located in an area that the City has prioritized for near-term growth.
6. The proposed annexation and residential subdivision would place additional burdens on City
services, including, but not limited to, public safety services.
7. The proposed annexation and residential subdivision would place additional burdens on
local roads.
8. Based on the foregoing, the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City of
Meridian.
B. Conclusions of law. The City Council concludes that:
1. The City Council takes judicial notice of Idaho Code section 50-222, which governs
annexations by cities.
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,FINAL DECISION,AND ORDER
Case No.H-2021-0070(Burnside Ridge Estates) Page 1
2. The City Council takes judicial notice of the Local Land Use Planning Act ("LLUPA"),
codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code.
3. The City Council takes judicial notice of the Unified Development Code of the City of
Meridian(UDC), all current zoning maps, the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and all
minutes and maps concerning the priority of growth in the City of Meridian's area of city
impact.
4. In order to grant an annexation and rezone, the City Council must make certain findings as
delineated in UDC section I 1-513-3, including a finding that the proposed annexation is in
the best interest of the City of Meridian. UDC § 11-5B-3(E)(5).
5. Because the City Council found that the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the
City of Meridian, the requirements set forth in UDC section 11-5B-3 have not been satisfied,
and the proposed annexation shall not proceed.
6. A city's decision to deny a Category A annexation is not subject to judicial review under
Idaho Code section 50-222(6). Black Labrador Investing, LLC v. Kuna City Council, 147
Idaho 92, 97, 205 P.3d 1228, 1233 (2009).
7. The purpose of the UDC is to "[c]arry out the policies of the comprehensive plan by
classifying and regulating the uses of property and structures within the incorporated
areas of the City of Meridian[.] UDC § 11-1-2(B) (emphasis added). Because the Property
is not located within the incorporated area of the City of Meridian, and because the proposed
annexation shall not proceed, the City Council is precluded from granting the Applicant's
request for a preliminary plat.
8. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6503, the City of Meridian has properly exercised the powers
conferred by LLUPA.
C. Order. Pursuant to the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council hereby
denies Applicant's request for annexation of the Property. Further, because the Property is not
located within the incorporated area of the City of Meridian, the City Council hereby denies
Applicant's request for a preliminary plat.
D. Final decision. Upon approval by majority vote of the City Council, this is a final decision of
the governing body of the City of Meridian.
E. Judicial review. Pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6521(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a
matter enumerated in Idaho Code section 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this
final decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after all remedies have been exhausted,
including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City
Code section 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by Chapter 52,
Title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not
admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA.
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,FINAL DECISION,AND ORDER
Case No.H-2021-0070(Burnside Ridge Estates) Page 2
F. Notice of right to regulatory takings analysis. Pursuant to Idaho Code sections 67-652 1(1)(d)
and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a
written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis.
IT IS SO ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, on this 21 st day of June,
2022.
Robert E. Simison 6-21-2022
Mayor
Attest:
Chris Johnson 6-21-2022
City Clerk
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,FINAL DECISION,AND ORDER
Case No.H-2021-0070(Burnside Ridge Estates) Page 3
DEVELOPMENT REAL PROPERTY ZONINC
CLARK
WARDLE
Joshua J. Leonard
jleonardoclarkwardle.com
�E
CEIVED
July 5, 2022
JUL 05 2022
Sent via personal service to:
CITY COLERKS OFFICE ORIGINAL
Mayor and City Council
c/o City Clerk
33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 104
Meridian, Idaho 83642
With copies sent via hand-delivery to:
City Attorney's Office and Community Development Department
33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 306 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 102
Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Request for Reconsideration -- H-2021-0070.
Dear Mayor and Council,
Our firm represents Linder Holdings, LLC ("Applicant'), which, through its engineers, Kimley-
Horn & Associates, is the applicant in File No. H-2021-0070. On behalf of the Applicant and
Kimley-Horn, we are grateful for the time and attention of the Mayor and Council in reviewing
the Applicant's annexation and preliminary plat applications (together, "Applications") for the
proposed Jackson(Burnside)Ridge Estates Subdivision("Project"). We also are grateful for City
staffs efforts and the strong working relationship the Applicant and its representatives have
enjoyed with City staff in the course of developing the Applications. We strongly believe the high
quality of the Project is attributable to the dedication, knowledge, experience, care, and
communication of City staff.
I
We agree with all of the positive feedback about the Project from the Mayor and Council during
the City Council's deliberations on June 7, 2022, as well as from the Planning and Zoning
Commission following its public hearing on April 28, 2022. As you know, following its
deliberations, the City Council, by a narrow 3-2 vote, denied the Applications, despite the
unanimous recommendation of approval received from the Planning and Zoning Commission,
which never mentioned adverse impact on services. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
I
T.Hethe Clark Geoffrey M.Wardle Joshua 1.Leonard Preston B.Rutter T:208.388.1000 251 E Front St.Suite 310
F:208.388.1001 PO Box 639
clarkwardle.com Boise ID 83701
r
July 5,2022
Re: Request for Reconsideration--H-2021-0070
Page 2 of 3
Final Decision, and Order ("Final Decision") denying the Applications was approved and signed
on June 21,2022.
Although the Council narrowly voted to deny the Applications, Council Members unanimously
agreed the Project was"beautiful,""really well thought out," "outstanding,""thoughtful,"a great
example for future projects,and that it"create[d] a sense of place that reflects the unique character
of South Meridian." All of the Council Members praised and thanked the Applicant for the time
and effort it expended to bring forward the Applications and the Project. Nonetheless, the
Applications were denied.
Pursuant to Section 1-7-10 of the City's Unified Development Code ("UDC"), we now write to
request reconsideration of the Council's denial of the Project's Applications. This
reconsideration is based upon the following specific deficiencies:
• First, the public hearing was closed without the Applicant being given the opportunity to
address questions raised by Council Members for the first time during the Council's
deliberations.
• Second,the denial appears to have been based upon an impossible standard. Rather than
evaluating whether there is an adverse impact on public services, as required by the UDC
(see UDC § 11-513-3E.4), the Applications were denied because they would create
additional burdens on public services. Any annexation will create an additional burden,
making the standard applied to these Applications unfair and unworkable. If applied to all
annexation applications, this standard will stop the City from ever annexing property,
regardless of its circumstances. Not only does the information in the record show there is
no adverse impact,but this"additional burden"standard would leave the City in a position
where no new annexations would ever be allowed.
• Third, comments during deliberations also indicated that denial of the Applications was
based on a"Priority Growth Map,"which,to our knowledge,has not been formally adopted
by the City or incorporated by reference into the City's Comprehensive Plan. No copies
had been made available to the Applicant at any time during the application process, and
the Applicant did not have an opportunity to comment on this map. More troubling,
comments made during the Council's deliberations indicated that the Priority Growth Map
is outdated and does not reflect the current availability of public services in the area,
including the existence of water and sewer infrastructure at the property' and a fire station
within 1.4 miles of the project, as depicted in the photographs and aerials contained in the
Water service is available along two frontages of the Subject Property,and Sewer service is available along its East frontage.
July 5,2022
Re: Request for Reconsideration--H-2021-0070
Page 3 of 3
following pages, which contain additional information supporting our request for
reconsideration.2 (Also see: Exhibit A - Utility Infrastructure.) ACHD's street network
adequately serves and operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS), pursuant to the
approved TIS and subsequent ACHD Staff Report,with its conclusions. (Also see:Exhibit
B - Traffic and Road Improvement Plan.) The West Ada School District also did not
indicate any adverse impact, as noted in the Staff Report. The Applications must be
considered based on actual comments from agency service providers and standards that
have been expressly adopted by the Council.
• Fourth, comments during the hearing seem to indicate that this project was not judged
simply on its own merits, but instead was considered in light of future applications that
might be made in the vicinity. Each application—including this one—must be considered
on its own merit and not based on speculation as to what other property owners may decide
to request annexation by the City.
We believe denial of the Applications requires reconsideration for all of the reasons identified
above and further discussed in in the following pages, which hereby are incorporated into out
Request for Reconsideration by this reference. By giving the Applicant an opportunity to respond
to the issues raised by the Council in its deliberations, reconsideration will ensure the Applicant's
due process rights are protected. Equally important,though,the City should revisit the"additional
burdens" standard imposed on the Applications, and should, on reconsideration, review these
Applications on their own merits, as opposed to concerns about potential future annexation
applications. Reconsideration is appropriate in this case and we respectfully request that the
Council grant our request.
Again, we're grateful for the time and effort expended by City staff,the Council, and the Mayor
in reviewing our Applications.
Very truly yours,
01kNJ
Joshua J. Leonard
Enclosures:
• Memorandum in Support of Request for Reconsideration
• Exhibit A-Utilities
• Exhibit B -Roads
2 Although Fire Station No. 6 is depicted on the Priority Growth Map, its existence does not appear to have been factored into
response times to the property.
+T:
TO: Mayor Simison, Council President Hoaglun, Council Vice President Borton,and
Council Members Bernt,Perreault,and Strader
FROM: Clark Wardle LLP �,-
DATE: July 5,2022 ORIGINAL
RE: Memorandum in Support of Request for Reconsideration(H-2021-0070)
CW FILE#: 24000.2
In support of the request for reconsideration submitted herewith on behalf of our client, Linder Holdings,
LLC, and its engineers, Kimley-Horn & Associates, (together, "Applicant'), we identify the following
specific deficiencies in the City Council's decision to deny the applications in matter number H-2021-
0070(the"Applications")for the proposed Jackson(Burnside)Ridge Estates Subdivision("Project"):
1. Due Process Violations.
After the public comments ended at the public hearing on June 7, 2022, Council Members raised
concerns about the availability of services and the ability of the City and other service providers to
serve the Project. These concerns were raised during the Council's deliberations on the
Applications,so there was no opportunity for the Applicant to address or respond to them. This is
extremely important, as the concerns about the availability of services were based on incomplete
understandings of the facts,which the Applicant was prepared to address, if given the opportunity
to respond. Additionally, the denial set an impossible annexation standard, which will be
problematic for future annexations, as described below.
2. Denial not Based on Obiective Standards and Required Findings.
Council Members who voted to deny the application did so, in large part, due to(a)the perceived
impacts the Project may have on various public services,and(b)a belief that approving this Project
would open a wide path to further annexations in southwest Meridian. These beliefs are not
reflective of the current conditions in this area or the standards applicable to annexation requests.
(a) The information in the record (including the Staff Report and the comments and reports
received from commenting departments and agencies) unequivocally indicated that all
services (roads, fire, police, schools, sewer, water, etc.) can be provided to this Project
without an adverse impact. Nevertheless,the Council denied the Applications,finding:
The proposed annexation and residential subdivision would place
additional burdens on City services, including, but not limited to, public
safety services.
(Final Decision, Section A.6.) (emphasis added). To be clear, "additional burden" is not
the actual standard for annexation identified in the UDC. It goes without saying that there
is an "additional burden" every time property is annexed; as a result, the UDC standard
requires analysis of whether there is an adverse impact on these services. Quoting from
the UDC:
Page 2 of 11
The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services
within the city including, but not limited to, school districts;
(UDC § 11-5B-3.E.4,emphasis added.)
In denying the Applications,the Council's June 21,2022 Findings of Fact,Conclusions of
Law, Final Decision, and Order ("Final Decision") did not specifically identify what
"additional burdens" some Council Members felt the Project would place on the City's
public safety services. Again, though, the absence of "additional burdens" is not the
required finding for approving annexation. The issue is whether there is an adverse impact,
and the City's record includes no evidence to support a finding that annexation would
result on "an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision
providing public services within the city... ."(Id.)
Comments in the record from the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian Fire
Department, respectively, show no adverse impact. After reviewing the Project, the
Meridian Fire Department determined that,"This project can be serviced by the Meridian
Fire Department." (Meridian Fire Department Staff Report,dated February 16,2022.) The
Meridian Police Department's comments on the Project included, "The Meridian Police
Department has no outstanding issues concerning this development application." (Letter
from Meridian Police Department to Joseph Dodson, dated February 17, 2022.) The
response times of the Meridian Police Department (3 minutes, 13 seconds) and the
Meridian Fire Department (less than 5 minutes) both are within the expected level of
service goals. In fact, the Meridian Police Department's expected response time to the
Project is nearly 1/2-minute quicker than the average response time in the City of Meridian
(3 minutes,43 seconds,pursuant to the Letter from Meridian Police Department to Joseph
Dodson, dated February 17, 2022), and the Meridian Fire Department's Fire Station 6 is
only 1.4 miles from the Project, pursuant to the Meridian Fire Department Staff Report,
dated February 16, 2022).
The record shows that the Project will have no adverse impact on utility providers. In fact,
the City already opted to bring sewer and water infrastructure to the property - both are
immediately available adjacent to the property,as noted in the Staff Report:
Water
• D=ante to Sen-ices Directly adjacent
• Pressure Zone 5
• Water Quaitry Concern: None
• Project Consistent with Yes
Water Master Plan
and
Wastewater
• Distance to Server Directly adjacent
Sen-ices
• Project Consistent with Yes
XVW Master
Plan/Facility Plan
4863-4604-4711,v. 1
Page 3 of 11
(Staff Report, dated June 7, 2022, Section II, entitled "Summary of Report" (p. 3),
highlights added.) The existence of water infrastructure adjacent to the property also is
shown in the following nine photographs, each of which includes an aerial that shows the
location in which the photograph was taken:
Image 1
r{ `
C
a:r
ti, w x
Image 2
n R
4863-4604-4711,v. 1
Page 4 of 11
Image 3
�er
— �-
Image 4
"'Kamm=®
Image 5
4863-4604-4711,v. 1
Page 5 of 11
Image 6
S
1AO60flAOGE _ -'c1 f -
ESfAT6
Iinage 7
•
UCRO'1 kYGE � -
ESiAIES
rI
Image 8
O
4863-4604-4711,v. 1
Page 6 of 11
Image 9
t,
r
JACKSON RIDGE
ESTATES _
i
i
j
The existence of sewer infrastructure along Linder Road, immediately adjacent to the
property, also is shown in the following five photographs,each with an aerial showing the
location of the sewer infrastructure in the picture:
Image 10
O
JACKSON Riot_
ESTATES
Image 11
' JACKSON RIDGE
ESTATES
.r
4863-4604-4711,v. 1
Page 7 of 11
Image 12
at
•
• O
•
JACKSON RIDGE
ESTATES - - s
Image 13
iiVicto
ID
4.
JACKSO�J RIDGE
ESTATES
•
M1
Image 14
5�X-
r. O
• JACKSON RIDGE
ESTATES
"Political subdivisions providing public services" also include the West Ada School
District ("School District") and the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD"). Neither
agency has indicated that there is an adverse impact. The Staff Report noted the following
information received from the School District:
4863-4604-4711,v. 1
Page 8 of 11
West Ada School Disrricr
Estimated Additional School 157 estimated children at full build out(pecific to the area)
Aged Childmm.
• Capacity of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary—675 students
Victory Middle School—1,000 students
Meridian High School—2,075 students
• 4 of Students Enrolled Miry McPherson Elementary—442 students
Victory Middle School—996 students
Meridian Hi&School—1,698 students
SaGol of Choice Optoa, • Christine Donnell Elementary(Arts)—480 enrolled w.-capacity of 500)
P Spalding Elementary(STEM)—651 enrolled eapacity of 750)
(Selections from the Staff Report, dated June 7, 2022, Section 11, entitled "Summary of
Report"(p.3),highlights added.) The Project also received a favorable report from ACHD
-- based on the Traffic Impact Study (a copy of which is in the record), ACHD staff
commented:
The TIS indicates that all roadway segments in the study area are expected
to operate at an acceptable level of service planning threshold during the
existing AM and PM peak hours under existing traffic, 2025 background
traffic,and 2025 total traffic conditions.
ACHD Report, dated June 1, 2022, Section B.2.b.
This question,"What standards are applicable to annexations?"is critical. If the City takes
the position that any additional burden is a basis to deny annexation, not only would the
City be applying a standard that does not exist in its code, but it would be setting up a
situation where all annexations must be denied. This is obviously not the case,nor do we
believe it was the Council's intent. But it is the logical outcome of fairly applying the
standards under which this annexation was decided.
(b) Based on the Council's deliberations, the Council Members who voted to deny the
application appear to have been less concerned about this Project than about future
annexation applications and future projects. The question to be decided by Council should
have been whether this Project complies with the standards and findings required in the
UDC. Instead,the standard was framed during deliberations as follows:
I think that the gentleman who got up to testify that the next property is
ready to go after this one goes. This is really a key decision, I think,
for this Council, is, if you're ready to see more development in this
area,well this is a great project to start that. If you're not,well then,
unfortunately you've got to make a decision tonight,in a lot of ways.
I'm not saying the next one has to be approved,but if it comes in looking
just like this one, as good, it would be hard to prevent future annexations
and growth in this area.
(June 7, 2022, Meridian City Council Meeting - https:Htinyuri.conVOuestionFramed,
emphasis added.) In another comment during deliberations, a Council Member admitted
that the vote was less about this Project and more about future projects:
4863-4604-4711,v. 1
Page 9 of 11
For me it's timing, for me it's the impact of future development that
will come in this area if we approve this.
(June 7, 2022, Meridian City Council Meeting - https:Htinyurl.com/FutureDevInArea,
emphasis added.) And in yet another Council Member comment during deliberation:
As much as I like all that's been done [on this Application], I am very
concerned that we will invite some additional applications and
potentially not be able to provide the services to those properties
because we are intentionally not investing infrastructure in that southwest
area.
(June 7, 2022, Meridian City Council Meeting - https://tinyurl.com/FutureDevelopments,
emphasis added.)
The standard applied by the Council in denying this Application simply does not exist in
the UDC. Each and every application that comes before the City must be judged on
its own merits. Projects cannot be denied (or approved) based on speculation on what
applications may or may not follow. Instead, the City must rely on its UDC and other
governing documents and judge each application individually, in light of the UDC
requirements and the comprehensive plan provisions applicable at the time of application
submittal.
As noted above, the record establishes that services are available adjacent to the property.
The record also establishes that all levels of service, response times, and other indicators
remain within acceptable ranges at full build-out of the Project.
3. Misplaced Deference Given to Priority Growth May.
(a) The City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan("Comp.Plan")challenges the City to"guide
growth to priority areas" (Comp. Plan, § 3-2), "[p]rovide utilities in high priority growth
areas" (Comp. Plan.Table 3.1, 3.02.01A), "[p]rioritize growth and development where it
furthers the City's vision and allows for the efficient provision of services" (Comp.Plan.
Table 3.1,3.03.02),and"[e]ngage with service providers,City leadership,and community
members to identify priority growth areas"(Comp.Plan.Table 3.1,3.03.02A).
These are laudable goals; however, they must be undertaken in a way that allows an
applicant to know and understand the standards to which they will be subject when they
make applications in the City of Meridian.
To our knowledge,the"Priority Growth Map"referenced at hearing has not been adopted
or incorporated by reference into any of the City's governing land use documents or the
UDC. And again,to our knowledge,it does not contain established standards for reviewing
annexation applications. What we do have is a series of decisions by the City that
organically identify priority growth areas. These include:
• extending utility infrastructure to areas of prioritized growth;
4863-4604-4711,v. 1
Page 10 of 11
• engaging with other service providers to ensure they do not extend their infrastructure
to serve areas not prioritized for growth; and
• negotiating with Ada County to identify and agree upon the City's area of city impact.
The City's prior decisions and actions have unambiguously identified the Subject Property
for"priority growth":
• The City included the area of the Subject Property in its Area of City Impact, which
was recently'renegotiated with Ada County;
• The City's sewer and water infrastructure has been extended', so that it currently is
immediately adjacent to the Subject Property; and
• The City built Fire Station 6 only 1.4 miles from the Project.
These prior actions show that the City has prioritized the Subject Property for growth.
Utilities are there. Services are there—in fact,we understand this project will help provide
a sewer connection for the future school site. The fire station is there to serve the project.
Collectively,these actions show that the City has, in fact,prioritized this area for growth.
(c) The so-called"Priority Growth Map" is not in the City's Record in this Application, File
No. H-2021-0070. Instead of consulting it directly, Council Members relied on their
memories of it. The actual map was not identified or provided to the Applicant either
during the hearing or at any time leading up to it. The Priority Growth Map was not
mentioned to the Applicant during the Pre-Application Conference sessions on November
26,2019,May 12,2020, or March 2,2021 (see"Pre-App Notes V 1"in the record), it was
not included in the June 7, 2022 Staff Report , and we even heard during the hearing that
City Planner Joe Dodson hasn't seen it . This of course prevented the Applicant from being
able to review,reference, or address the actual map.
The concept of the Priority Growth Map obviously is important and beneficial. Even if it
had been adopted or incorporated by reference into the City's comprehensive plan,though,
it must be regularly updated to be an effective planning tool. After the Council's denial of
the Applications, City staff provided a copy of the May 2020 Priority Growth Map to the
Applicant. Based on Council Members'comments during Council's June 7th meeting,and
also based on the face of the Priority Growth Map itself("Printed 5/6/2020 9:19 am"),we
believe the May 2020 Priority Growth Map is out of date. For example, although Fire
Station 6 is depicted on the Priority Growth Map, it doesn't appear that the "5 min Fire
Response" area was updated to include the entire property, which clearly is within the
Meridian Fire Department's 5-minute response area (see Meridian Fire Department Staff
Report, dated February 16, 2022). Additionally, water infrastructure has been expanded
and extended along W.Victory Road. But given that the Applicant did not have a copy of
1 Effective July of 2021.
2 See Images 1 through 14,attached.
4 httas:htinvurl.com/OldPGAMan(Council Member: "...if we zoom out, and we've brought up and dusted off our old priority
growth areas map,where would this fit?" Joe Dodson:"I cannot answer that.I don't think I've ever seen that map.")
4863-4604-4711,v. 1
r
Page 11 of 11
this map and was not given an opportunity to respond to the Council's understanding of it,
the Applicant had no meaningful opportunity to ensure the Council's understanding reflects
the actual facts on the ground.
4. Denial Based on Conversations Outside the Record.
It was clear from several comments during the Council's deliberations that confusion existed about
fundamental elements of the Application. Several Council Members referenced prior conversations
and discussions"about this specific square mile and this lot in particular,"'which influenced their
votes to deny this Application. Absent additional information about the nature, context, content,
and participants in those prior conversations and discussions,the Applicant is unable to adequately
or sufficiently address them.
5. Deficient Final Decision.
The City's Final Decision failed to analyze the facts in the Record and provide a reasoned basis for
the Council's denial of the Application; instead, the Final Decision consisted of bare, conclusory
statements,unsupported by facts in the City's record.
As noted above, these statements are troubling, not only because they lack detail and factual
analysis, but because they effectively paint the City into a corner. If subsequent annexation
applications are decided under the same standards as this Application, then the City will not
approve any annexation that creates any additional burden on City services. In other words, the
City cannot approve a_y future annexations if it applies this standard. This not only violates this
Applicant's rights, but it also sets an impossible standard that will stop any City growth going
forward. This decision requires reconsideration.
On these bases,we respectfully request reconsideration by the Council of its denial of the Application,and
we welcome an opportunity to address the concerns raised by the Council in its deliberations on June 7,
2022. As noted above,the Applicant possesses information relevant to the Council's concerns, and would
greatly appreciate the ability to present such information to the Council following its vote to reconsider its
denial.
I
5 This comment seemed to infer that the current Applications are not the first significant development proposal for the property,
which is incorrect. Prior to the Applications,the Jackson Family used this property in the operation of their dairy farm,and this is
the first significant development proposal for this property.
4863-4604-4711,v. 1
L=, l ■ tW1� � � � � i � � IIJ
> �8 � ;o fil
z w x
b
;y
— 4• 9 .y"
00,
_'_—
oil
Arl-
o
__
y r (l)/ 'u� 'uf a 'uf a 3
v
I. J
LU
— --- ---— „- --------------------- --- r$
Q
z
cD
0
1
T
1;
� C
��� I• N .V
N
U) o-
W1
c
N a•a-oavaaol
f-
I
I
i
1
1
1
1
a ° C m
U U m w
U ) U 2
m c
� d c c G
m
o E
Q bra m v .0a w
r
Y
elf `w a 0 3 0 c n
IZ m C p n. N:�
Q - v c v m p o �U c a
� 0 3 w - Qa- aU mW
n d 2 5 c x v rn
cop a °O p c w ai -�¢ a
ZC m 55
o C6 a ° wo
covC o c
0c ; Ecw
U� oL
S7 p O O Q H j > > L_
o a
-o m v `o 0 6 ° o
coo m c c c m c c
o o o c o
d
' o 2' o m y E2 N m =a
O p N U v °' ° E
C C C C p
fAl-1.11 AM Rd CY
J I I ICI l;l I;I ICI ® O ¢ p
L1S
J
Q
z
cD
0