Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Susan Wildwood Tara Green From: Sent: To: Subject: susan wildwood [darkfire@qwest.net] Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:22 PM Tara Green; Anna Canning; Barbara Shiffer Letter Response re Spurwing Limited Partnership Attachments: Spurwing Letter to Meridian.doc; Spurwing Letter Exhibit 1.pdf ra .. Spurwing Spurwing ~r to Meridian.er Exhibit l.P( Dear City Clerk, I have attached a letter and an exhibit, in response to the reconsideration of the SpulWing Limited Partnership applications that is to be heard Tuesday, February 6th. I would appreciate your including these documents with the packet for the City Council tomorrow. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please telephone me at 383-0390. Susan Wildwood Courtesy Copies to Planning and Zoning Director and Staff 1 Susan Wildwood, Chartered Attorney-At-Law Post Office Box 6502 Boise, Idaho 83707 Office: (208) 383-0390 Fax: (208) 343-3756 February 1, 2007 RECEIVED FEB 0 1 2007 Transmitted by facsimile: Mayor de Weerd - Members City Council City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office RE: Applications AZ-06043, PP-06045 and V AR 06-020 by Spurwing Limited Partnership for Annexation and Zoning, Approval of a Preliminary Plat And a Variance Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I represent Spurwing Limited Partnership with reference to the reconsideration of the above referenced applications that are currently set for reconsideration by the City Council on February 6,2007. This letter is written in support of my client's position that the original action taken by the City is supported by Idaho law and is in the best interests of the City itself. Additional testimony will be presented at the hearing of the matter on February 6, 2007 as is appropriate. This matter was set for reconsideration based on a letter from Ms. JoAnn Butler who represents individuals opposed to the applications. The basis for the opposition is that annexation is not legally available for the property and that even if it is, the property should not be annexed or rezoned because there is a "moratorium" on development for a period of fifteen years precluding the City's action. ANNEXATION Ms. Butler suggests that the City cannot affIrmatively respond to three questions regarding annexation: 1. Are the 20.51 acres eligible for annexation by being contiguous? 2. Would annexation be in the public interest? 3. Is the annexation of 20.51 acres reasonably necessary for the orderly development of Meridian. ContilZuitv As the City is fully aware, annexation of lands in to the City is controlled by Chapter 2, Title 50, Idaho Code, specifically Section 50-222. Section 50-222 provides in relevant part: February 1, 2007 Page 2 (1) Legislative intent. The legislature hereby declares and determines that it is the policy of the state of Idaho that the cities of the state should be able to annex lands which are reasonably necessary to assure the orderly development of Idaho's cities in order 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 the 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. (2) General Authority. Cities have the authority to annex land into a city upon compliance with the procedures required in this section....Provided further, that said city council shall not have the power to declare such land, lots or blocks a part of said city if they will be connected to such city only by a shoestring or strip of land which comprises a railroad or highway right-of-way. Section 50-222 provides for the annexation of three categories of properties, only one of which is at issue in this case, Category A where an owner has requested annexation. However, annexation may occur only where the property under consideration is actually contiguous to the city limits. The major question then is whether the subject property is contiguous to the city limits? See Section 50-222(5), L C. If it is not contiguous via a usable area of land, annexation is improper. As noted above, Section 50-222(2) provides that: .. .said city council shall not have the power to declare such land, lots or blocks a part of said city if they will be connected to such city only by a shoestring or strip of land which comprises a railroad or highway right-of-way. Thus, as previously advised by legal counsel, the City could not use a public road to annex the subject property. And, as he further noted, that portion of the subject property providing potential connection is not a public road, therefore the prohibition referenced above does not apply in this situation. Ms. Butler claims that that portion of the subject property providing connection to the existing City limits would constitute a mere "shoestring" of land that cannot support annexation, citing Potvin v. Village of Chubbuck, 76 Idaho 453, 284 P.2d 414 (1955). While this 1955 case does refer to such a "shoestring", in that case it was a strip of land five (5) feet in width and three (3) miles long that was the only".. . connecting link with the land actually sought to be annexed. (See Potvin, Id at page 418.) That is not true of the subject property before the City. As illustrated in the preliminary plat previously submitted to the City, the subject property is roughly a "flag" shaped lot with the narrower portion on the west providing the contiguity with the current City limits. This portion of the property is illustrated in Exhibit 1 hereto and has approximately the following dimensions as noted on the preliminary plat: South boundary is contiguous with Highway 20/26 and has 69.52 feet of frontage February 1, 2007 Page 3 Center is approximately 50 feet in width North south length is 384.23 feet in length A reasonable dimension of this portion of the property would be: 50 feet - narrowest width 350 feet - length excludes narrow section at extreme north This results in a lot that is 50 x 350 = 17,500 square feet If one applies only the requirements of the R-4 zone, this portion of the subject property could alone be annexed as a usable area of land, even including the most restrictive of the setbacks set forth in the R-4 zone itself. A residence of a minimum of 1,444 square feet (footprint of 38 x 38 feet) could actually be located on this dimensioned lot without violating any of the setbacks of the zone as illustrated below. R-4 Requirements Dimensioned Lot Minimum property size: 8,000 square feet Minimum street frontage: 60 feet Minimum living area 1,400 square feet Interior side setback 5 feet - 10 feet total Street setback garage to Highway 20/26 at least a "collector" Street landscape buffer Entryway corridor Rear setback: 17,500 square feet 69.23 feet 1,444 square feet 12 feet 25 feet Locating the residence 75 feet from Highway 20/26 and subtracting its depth leaves 237 feet for a rear setback 35 feet 15 feet This exercise, while tedious, illustrates that proposed contiguity is based on an area that is presently usable for a residential structure and not the "shoestring" suggested by Ms. Butler. City of Meridian Interest As noted during testimony pertaining to this request, the City has extended is area of impact to include the subject property. Therefore, the City had previously indicated that it intended to annex the subject property when contiguous as part of its plans for the expansion of the city limits and city growth. No city grows evenly from its center. Most annexations expanded the city limits unevenly along all its boundaries and over various periods of time. Until the City limits are expanded north of Highway 20/26, as in this instance, there is no opportunity to consider future requests of adjoining landowners for annexation. February 1, 2007 Page 4 MORATORIUM Ms. Butler suggests that a note on the fmal plat "legally assured" those in opposition that there would be no development of this property for an absolute period of fifteen years. The plat note actually states that the lots shall be used as "...defmed in the Non-Farm Development Section of the Ada County Code, Section 8-48-7 and in Title 8 Chapter 9." As noted in testimony before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, the original development was a non-farm subdivision under Ada County Code. The Code at that time provided that such a project could develop only a limited amount of property for a period of fifteen years. That section of the Code now provides that the development limitation is only until rezoned. In this case, the subject property would be annexed into the City limits. At that point, Ada County Code no longer applies to the subject property. Counties have jurisdiction to enact ordinances, but those ordinances are effective only within the unincorporated area of the county. Article XII, Section 2 of the Idaho Constitution provides: Any county or incorporated city or town may make and enforce, within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with its charter or with the general laws. Once property is annexed into the jurisdictional limits of a city, it is not subject to the zoning laws of the county because such laws are superseded by the zoning laws of the city itself. VARIANCE The variance request is a result of a site constraint that occurred through the golf course design approved by Ada County in 1993. No one could have foreseen all development issues for the property at that time. Ms. Butler suggests that the variance should not be allowed because the situation was created by the applicant and that it poses a safety concern. The only other option is to cut a road through one of the other lots. However, this is not an available option in any event. There is no other access allowed to Highway 20/26 other than the main entry into and from the Spurwing Development. Second, there will be a gated secondary access for emergency vehicles from the western boundary of the subject property. The site constraints support the requested variance. There are no options that would allow any additional access on to Highway 20/26 in any event because the Idaho Transportation Department would not grant any other access points even if a road could be cut through the fairway, thereby reducing the actual block length itself. CONCLUSION The City has spent a considerable time reviewing this project. It is unique in both its setting February 1, 2007 Page 5 and opportunities. It would be a disservice to the City to suggest that it has not considered fully all the legal underpinnings of its actions and carefully reviewed the design criteria to be applied to these applications. Spurwing Limited Partners respectfully request that the City Council affIrm its earlier actions and grant its applications for annexation and zoning, approve the proposed preliminary plat and grant the variance for block length. Very truly yours, (j)/tlticvn C5)ftf;k{){)d Susan Wildwood cc: File . 1 50' J I.. J~ 12 I 1 it: .t- o.. v- a) 1 .. co "I o . "I,..... J-U I b""" ~ 0- 0 1 (/) "I b 1 0 z: I 1 1 I 1 1 5' I 1 7' CURVE TABLE ~ I. 4> I CURVE RADIUS DELTA ~ --- C6 20.00 89'32'12" 1 , ~~(:) ARC CHORD CHORD BRG 1 ~~~ 31.25 28.17 S 44'25'26" E I 1 1 l 1 1 L() N , "'6' -- '.......... -- N 89"11'32-W 69.84' 0 ..q- 22,. r-.2J _ _ LCL W. CHINDEN BLVD~ _ 27' 26 SCALE 1"- 20' SPURWING PATIO 'HOMES E".,"EER,II. O\lG.DATE 02/01/fI1 ria PftO.J. NO. 51129 EXHIBIT A 'SOLUTIO.III SHEEr 1 of 1 LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 or SECTION 23, T.4N., R.1W., 8.1.4. 1029 N. ROSARIO STREET, SUITE 100 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 /51129 EXH A.OWG MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO PIIono (201) GJS-WIIO r"" (2011) 1lJlI-0II41