Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 15, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 33 of 60 Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in -- -' - ,_ a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. Our next item -- not only our next, but last is Items 12 and 13, Public Hearing AZ 04-005, a request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 and Public Hearing PP 04- 006, request for preliminary plat approval of 20 single-family lots on these 5.273 acres. At this time I'd like to open both public hearings and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. On the first Item, No. 12, the annexation and zoning request, the applicant has proposed a rezone to R-4. The property is here on the north, the bold actually outlines two five-acre parcels more or less. We are just -- the subject property tonight is just on the north here. There is two separate Ada County tax parcels, both owned by the applicant and both are the subject of the application. Ustick Road is here on the north part of the screen, on the top of the screen. Several Ada County undeveloped parcels on the south side of Ustick. Wingate Lane, private lane, does extend at the mid mile between Locust Grove and Eagle Road down to the property. Packard Acres 2 is to the north. Chateau Meadows East is to the west. The parcel on the south zoned RUT, separate ownership. Packard Acres No. 1 is located here. Carol Subdivision has also had about half of their properties annexed last year and, then, of course, you have an office park and River Valley Elementary School. So, that's generally the vicinity that we are talking about. Packard Acres -- existing Packard Acres Subdivision is also R-4 zoning, so they are proposing the same zone for this five-acre in-fill parcel. The Comprehensive Plan does designate the property as medium density residential, which is three to eight dwelling units per acre and they are proposing the R-4, which does conform with that. Our staff report lists several other Comprehensive Plan policies, as well as the applicant's cover letter, a couple of -- that they felt fit the policies, particularly in fill, is a goal and policy of the Comprehensive Plan to get these annexed and on city services. So, the findings that we listed for annexation and rezone did generally find that -- that the application meets the required findings for that and there is a recommendation for approval. On item number 13 - I guess this aerial photo zooms in a little bit and shows you more or less existing conditions. I think this was taken about mid 2003, I believe. It does reflect the street construction that was part of Packard Acres that exists. The parcel is outlined here and it does have East Challis that is already constructed here on the north boundary of the parcel. As you can see, there are some existing houses and some out buildings on the site. This is just a photograph to give you a sense for the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 34 of 60 intersection that is at the corner of this parcel, which is the intersection of Wingate Lane and Challis and, as you can see, it is fenced on, essentially, all four intersections. Here is a copy of the preliminary plat for Item No. 13 that was submitted with the application. It is a 20-lot build -- 20 building lots and two common lots. Generally, they are proposing to just extend the existing stub streets that are in the area. The lot layout is similar to existing Packard Acres plats. The existing house that I pointed out on the aerial is located here in the middle block and they are proposing to retain that house. They have an application for a variance for the front setback, which certainly the Commission as often does, gives comments to the Council on those variances, even though you don't have recommending authority under the code, but your input is certainly welcome. Staff is probably recommending approval. The required front setback is 20 and they are proposing 13.5, I think, or 13.6. The next slide shows what they are proposing for their two common areas. The one up here in the north -- in the northwest is an ACHD storm water easement that, essentially, receives street runoff and -- but they are also proposing to improve it, of course, and to plant a couple of trees there. That is a part of what they are proposing as their five percent open space. And, then, the other open space they are proposing is here on their east boundary, immediately next to Wingate Lane and this is basically the one issue that I raised in my staff report for the Commission tonight was the Police Chief Musser's comments, as well as staffs original concerns about the location of this being immediately next to Wingate Lane, which is gravel and immediately north of this there is a -- as I showed you, a six foot solid cedar fence, which the staff report right now recommends they continue the same type of fencing. That was our assumption at the time. This plan actually proposes to have a split rail fence, instead of a six foot cedar, along Wingate Lane on the east side and, then, they propose a five foot high wrought iron fence on the west boundary for the existing house to have view into the open space and, then, the new house as well. We did receive -- the applicant contacted Chief Musser and tried to get more information from him as to his concerns about the surveillance on the property -- on this common open space, which the application originally -- we assumed that that would become basically like a tunnel and patrol officers would have a difficult time seeing into it. After he reviewed this with the applicant, he did submit a letter for the Commission that says that he is -- he says it originally was a concern, but he believes it does now provide for guardian presence of the common area and he is satisfied that the developer has worked to create a beneficial amenity for the proposal. So, his original concerns about the patrol officers being able to have view into that is apparently taken care of with the fencing. So, I wanted to point that out. I think the other standard conditions are in the staff report. Those were, really, the two main special considerations. We are recommending that the same conditions for these lots -- I'll go back one slide here. There is three build-able lots that back up to Wingate Lane and we have recommended the same conditions that Packard Acres No. 2 has been applied to those and that is no access to Wingate, that the existing driveway be terminated here at the east boundary and that the Wingate easement be widened from 15 feet to 20 feet and that the developer have their attorney draw up a release of dominant parcel interest for the private lane easement, which, basically, just prohibits that access in perpetuity as it runs with the titles, so -- do you have any questions? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 35 of 80 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad, while you're on that subject, has there been any discussion of going the other way with that? Is the issue with Wingate Lane that a property owner to the south still wants to drive straight up to Ustick, as opposed to using what are now other public roads in between? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: And there is no way to work that out, to just buy this easement from them and have them use the public roads that are being put in? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the property owners to the south -- the Sharps are here tonight and I'd ask you to maybe present that to them, but they, obviously, do have -- along with the other property owners there to the north -- and I can go back to the vicinity map that shows there -- as you can see, there are several properties that -- that, you know, front on Wingate Lane and part of their -- you know, their deeds have the Wingate Lane easement and there is an association for that, so -- Zaremba: Well, I'm sure have one to it, I'm not questioning that, I'm just wondering whether that's practical for the future for them and I will ask them. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Borup: Any other questions? I would like some more clarification on Wingate Lane also. All this yellow is all already Packard Acres or Packard Estates or whichever phase of the subdivision; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Borup: And this is their subject property right here? Hawkins-Clark: Just the -- correct. Yeah. The one you have your dot on. Right. Borup: Oh, just this little one right here? Hawkins-Clark: No. The -- not the one on the south. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Not this one. Borup: So, what properties -- so what properties south of the road is Wingate access to? Zaremba: That lower. Borup: Oh, this whole half here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 36 of 60 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Okay. Okay. Zaremba: But their easement crosses what's going to be several public roads on the way to Ustick. Borup: Okay. And those photographs you showed, you said it was gravel -- I thought I saw some paving on -- Hawkins-Clark: It's approximately 30 feet paved on both sides. Borup: Both sides of the public -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. The Ada County Highway District does have a standard policy that -- Borup: Don't track gravel on. Hawkins-Clark: No tracking for, right, about 30 feet. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey, office address 2501 Bogus Basin Road in Boise, and we are here tonight to ask for approval of the annexation and preliminary plat for 20 building lots and two common area lots. We have read the conditions that staff has prepared and we have been in contact with them in regards with the common area concerns that he had. I'll just go through this special plat considerations one by one and address those, so we can try to keep orderly and comment on each item. Borup: I think the ones we are most interested in are any of those that you had any concerns or disagreement with the staff. Tealey: Okay. Just to let you know, item one has been taken care of. We did add an additional 220 square feet to that open area and Craig has got the -- or, excuse me, Brad has got the amended drawing. We'd like to address the -- item number three of site specific, the fencing, that it be agreed upon here tonight will be what will be required in the final plat, so we need to go over that. We felt this open area was going to be a nice feature to the -- not only to this subdivision, but it's a portion of what will be the open areas for all of the Packard Subdivisions, not just the use of this 20 -- 20 lots. So, it's centrally located within the Packard development. Also, this subdivision will be eligible to join the swimming pool complex also. The developer is donating 1,500 dollars a lot to the association for membership in that swimming pool complex that they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 37 of 60 have for all of Packard also. So, they, actually, end up sharing that open space also. We are requesting that we be allowed to put a three foot high two pole fence along the western edge of Wingate Lane in order to maintain that openness. It's a very low traffic road. There is only one person -- one -- excuse me. There is one residence that accesses it and, really, the -- doesn't use it exclusively, he uses the public road system, believe it or not, quite a bit to get in and out of there, the travel along that road isn't even used all the time. So, there is very low traffic, low impact, so we are hoping that you see it as a good thing for the open area to maintain the openness of the area. So, we'd like to request that the two-rail fence and the wrought iron fence be approved. In item number five, the developer does not want to widen the Wingate Lane private road easement to 20 feet. The reason that Wingate road -- road easement was widened to the north of this application was so that ACRD had access to a storm drainage pond back there. This need isn't there for this development, so there is no reason to give an additional five feet to that easement. I mean there is no -- there is nothing that says this has to happen in order for it to function properly. It's functioned that way for 50 years, so there is really no reason for us to give up another five feet of ground. In item number 11 -- Borup: So, that would be -- in number five that would be items B and C is what you're contending? Tealey: Correct. Then, item number 11, just to -- as a matter of information, that pressurized irrigation system will be owned and maintained by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. It will be part of the overall Packard irrigation -- pressurized irrigation system. Are there any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: The existing house on the property, which, apparently, originally had access to Wingate Lane and probably has the same legal rights as the other people, they are willing to give up that access, I assume? Tealey: Yes. The owner -- Zaremba: According to the drawing. Tealey: According to the drawing. Yes. The owners of Packard Estates and Packard Acres had access to that Wingate Lane all along and we have agreed to not access that in the future. Zaremba: Have you had any discussions with the people to the south, apparently the Sharps, about buying out their right to use that portion? I'm talking about this area right here. Tealey: While that would certainly be nice, that's been a sticking point through the whole eight years that this application has been running, so -- there has been several Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Apol 15, 2004 Page 38 of 60 discussions, to answer your question, but no resolution. And I don't believe they would be willing to give that up. Zaremba: Offers have been made, I take it? Tealey: I don't think so. Given the discussions, I don't think an offer would be worth presenting. Zaremba: Okay. That's enough answer right there as well. Tealey: Yes. Zaremba: Those are my only questions. Borup: Okay. And item number six -- or maybe you -- you did mention that on the fencing, but that would also affect that. On page eight it says that the fencing construction would be the same material. Tealey: Yes. Borup: And that would go to your two rail and your wrought iron that you had mentioned? Tealey: Yes. That's correct. Right now there is an existing fence along that western boundary. Borup: There is you say? Tealey: Yes. And we'd like to -- which we paid for to put up, but we'd like to take it down and put in the split rail, just to give that open feeling in there Borup: Okay. Well, I don't have any other questions at this time. I may later. Commissioner? Newton-Huckabay: I'm still a little confused on the layout. So, just to the west there is homes that are part of -- Borup: I don't think that helped. Newton-Huckabay: No. I'm trying to figure out where -- on the Wingate Lane -- I'm still not clear. To me it looked like it ends right there at the corner. Borup: It continues clear down to access this parcel. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. And that's the parcel -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 39 of 60 Borup: And even though -- because it's an easement -- am I stating this right? Because it's an easement it's not shown on there as a public right of way, so it's -- it's part of these lots right here. Tealey: That's correct. But if you go -- maybe if you could go back to that picture, that intersection that you had, and you might explain -- right there. That's the Wingate Lane going north from the -- basically, the northeast comer of our subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And the split rail fence, then, would kind of continue -- Borup: This is the property here -- is this the subject property right here? Tealey: I'm not good with these things. This is our -- this is what we want to replace with the two rail split rail fence. Right there. Borup: Okay. That's what I -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Tealey: And this right in here is the western edge of the 15-foot easement for Wingate Lane. This is Wingate Lane here that accesses that property to the south. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. Borup: All right. I think we are clear. Do we have anyone else here that would like to offer testimony? Moe: Still have a question for the applicant. Borup: Okay. Moe: Could you go back over one more time as far as the widening Wingate Lane, why you're opposed to the 20 foot? Tealey: I guess I can use one of these things after all. This is the part of Wingate Lane in Packard Acres No. 2 that got widened to 20 feet and the reason that it got widened to 20 feet is when you go north here behind this garage, there is a storm drainage pond and ACHD needed 20 feet -- that's their minimum -- that's what they require for access to their -- they don't require that here, because there isn't any drainage structures and this part of Wingate Lane has been used in its existing condition since inception of the easement. So, there is really no reason for us to give another five feet of easement for that road. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 40 of 60 Tealey: Plus, right now as it's being used, this is on the 15 foot line right now. Moe: Okay. Borup: Okay. Does that conclude the Commission's questions? Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Now is the time. Sharp: I'm Dale Sharp and I live on the property south of the one that's in discussion tonight and we do have a private road agreement that's been in effect for about 91 years now for the entire length of that half mile and we do not wish to give up our -- that easement, because we do have our sewer -- I mean our garbage and our paper and our mail and our friends and relatives come down there and use that and if is used quite a bit, regardless of what was said here. Borup: You're talking about this section here you use quite a bit? Sharp: All the way up. Borup: Right. Okay. Sharp: From our property up to Ustick and if you try to go -- explain to people how you get into our place and you try to say, oh, come in from Fairview, you'd have one hell of a time. Same thing with Locust Grove. And this way if we have an emergency or something, those people -- emergency vehicles can come right from Ustick straight to our property without any problem. And we are asking that they widen that to 20 feet, so that we do have -- if emergency vehicles need to get in there, they have that. If you try to turn off of the public street there or what they are proposing as East Meadowgrass onto that 15 foot, it's going to be -- that's real difficult and this -- safety and liability concerns here, because we do have -- we do have people that come down Ustick and turn off onto Challis and -- or else come on down to East Meadowgrass or they come from both sides of -- on the east and west of Wingate Lane from Challis and go north or they come down to East Meadowgrass and tum there or they come from East Meadowgrass and turn north and go to East Challis or up to Ustick and we do have a lot of kids and just people trespassing on that lane there and it is -- if you see that, it's a dangerous situation, because you have cars coming from East Challis or East Meadowgrass turning onto Wingate Lane and they don't look, they just turn on there, and you have a blind spot there. Borup: This is cars going to Ustick? Sharp: Both. Every way. Borup: But it doesn't go anywhere to the south, other than your place, does it? Sharp: All right. You come from Challis, you come from -- Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 41 of f30 Borup: Could you back up one more -- yes. Right there. Okay. This is your property right here? This is your house right here? Sharp: Yes. Borup: Okay Sharp: They will come -- I got to see where -- okay. Here is Meadowgrass. They come here and tum up here, they either go up there or out here or this way or they come here and come down Wingate Lane and turn here. And the kids and walkers are also going through there and we are -when you say two rail fence, if they try to park there, they are blocking our easement and this happens, too, a lot of times and -- Borup: People are parking there now you're saying? Sharp: They will. They will. In fact, there is a fellow that lived right here on the corner, he was -- parked his pickup there, because he was doing some work over the -- into his property. That was just yesterday. And that blocks our easement. And if you have maintenance or something on that common area here, I'm afraid that they will come and try to block our easement there, too. So, safety and viability concerns is a real concern here. When -before this is all developed, that -- they have ditches -- they have ditches on the east side of the lane right across from where our property is and, then, right at the property line of --just north it crosses over and went up and fed the properties to the north. I mean we had -- and that lane was wider than it is now, because people would come down there and do the maintenance on the ditch or have to access the ditch -- the water from the lateral down right on our property. So, it was wider than it is now. That's just the way it was. It was that way until they started developing. And Jerry -- Borup: So, you're saying it was wider because you were encroaching on someone else's property? Sharp: Well, that's just -- that was the way it was when we move there. That was 30 some -- 36 years ago, because the farmer back then, they just -- you know, they -- Borup: They just kept widening the road as they used it? Sharp: Yeah. They worked it out. Now, Jerry Kirkpatrick said -- he lived just the -- north of East Challis on the west side of the lane there. He thought there was a ten foot additional footage there on the east side of the lane, but he couldn't find it and I do have a letter saying that he thought there was that ten foot. Borup: That's probably not pertinent to what we are -- Sharp: But, anyway, I'm just saying that, you know, it allowed for people to access there relatively easy, but -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission Aprll 15, 2004 Page 42 of 60 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Sharp? Sharp: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: What was -- I didn't get your comment on the landscaping. You approve -- you -- Sharp: We don't -- you know, as far as the common area, I'm just concerned that people don't try to use that lane there and park there to do maintenance on the common area. Newton-Huckabay: To mow the lawn? Sharp: Yeah. Because we go through there. That's our -- that's our access. We have used it for 36 years and that easement has been in existence for over 91 -- about 91 years now. Borup: Is the current part of Wingate in use, is there any no parking signs on there at all? Sharp: There is -- we have -- there is a sign on East Challis and there is one on -- that would go -- as you're going north you can see it off of East Challis. And, then, there is -- Borup: There is no parking on Wingate? Sharp: It's a no trespassing. Private lane, no trespassing. Borup: Okay. Sharp: And, then, there is one on the -- on the west side of -- that would -- if you're coming south there is one there and, then, there is one up at Ustick, but we need -- if this is approved and you go through with East Meadowgrass, you need some signs there, too, to try to keep these people from trespassing and creating a hazard. It is dangerous for those kids. Every time I look down there and people will just whiz out East Meadowgrass and head up north orvice-versa. Come down south from -- so that was -- as far as the -- as far as the subdivision, we have -- I have no objection to that. I think they did a fine job as far as it looks nice and everything else, but our concern is the safety and liability on Wingate Lane. Newton-Huckabay: Are any of those issues that -- did you work with the homeowners association in that subdivision? I'm assuming it will be the same homeowners association. Sharp: Pardon? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 43 of 60 Newton-Huckabay: On the homeowners association of Packard Estates, I mean could they be involved in not parking vehicles on the private road? Sharp: It's hard to control. I know that Borup: Right. Sharp: Because there are people that live right next to Wingate Lane that have used it and we have gone over and told them that is our lane, you know, and that is a private lane and they are not supposed to be using it and a lot of them are real -- they say, oh, okay, we won't use it, but others get real mad. But we are the ones that maintain it, we pay for the cost of maintaining it, we pay the taxes for that lane and -- our portion of it. We do. And (suppose -- Zaremba: That's why I wonder wouldn't it be cheaper and less headache to sell for a profit -- Sharp: We can't do that. We can't do that. It's all the homeowners on that lane that own that. Zaremba: Yeah, but you're the only one that uses it this far south. Sharp: No, I'm not. We got -- we have got people came down there and access their ditch water and everything else, so -- Borup: Okay. Anything else that you wanted to mention? Sharp: No. 1 think that would probably -- thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? H. Sharp: I'm Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, to Chairman and the Commissioners and the staff. I'd like to show these pictures, so it would make it a little bit clearer to you where we are talking and what it looks like, if I may, please. Borup: Do want to enter those in the record? H.Sharp: I'm sorry? Borup: Are you prepared to enter those in the record? H.Sharp: Yes. Borup: Okay. You realize they will stay in the -- H.Sharp: They also have a copy of them there, too. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 44 of 60 Borup: They have got them there? Okay. H. Sharp: They can look at them. And I have another copy. They can have these, because I have another copy at home. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, it's possible -- if the clerk's okay, we could put them on the overhead, so everyone can see them and, then, you could point to them from the overhead, if that works okay. H. Sharp: I thought this just might clarify, because, you know, you can look at lines on a piece of paper, as we are doing here, and it doesn't make an awful lot of sense. You can see -- this is Wingate Lane. The house here -- I'm supposed to use this thing. Let's see how smart I am. This one down here, the existing house that they want to keep, starting at this fence is ours, the southbound property. Over here you can see -- right here on this one you can see where they are coming -- this is Meadowgrass. You can see where they are coming off Meadowgrass, turning down and using Wingate Lane. And, of course, then, it goes down further and you can see where Challis Road is, too. But this will give you a little bit longer view, because that lane is a half-mile long and that's what I want to address tonight. We have one public road crossing Wingate Lane, that's Challis, and if the subdivision goes through as proposed, we will have two public roads across a private lane. A private road agreement was written in 1913, which was established for our property -our first title to our property was 1913 and we would respect or hope that this body would honor that 1913 road agreement and I wanted to read one portion of it that says -- and I quote: Use of all the owners -- to be used for the use of all the owners. The developer does own part of that land, the lane. They don't -- they do own this, but when they sell it, they don't. So, then, why would the people want to use it? Ada County Highway District has a road agreement or an easement to use that to cross there, but what right would the public have to use it, if they are not owners. We have a -- and if we are not going to abide by this contract -- it's notarized; it's a recorded deed. If we don't have to abide by this, why do we have to abide by any? Ada County -- Borup: Ma'am? Ma'am? Is there something that's not being - H. Sharp: Well, they crossed Wingate Lane. They crossed our private lane at Challis and -- Borup: Okay. H.Sharp: They crossed there. This is my comment. Ada County Highway -- Ada County says -- and I have a drawing here -- that a private lane cannot have a public road at either end. We have Ustick and Challis. If it is done, then, it needs to be brought up to standard and improved. If you go from Challis into Meadowgrass, we have got the same issue. It can no longer be a private road. My husband spoke to Mr. John -- a gentleman that was working with us on -- we have to take down the signs, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 45 of 6D because -- who identifies Wingate as a private lane. If it's a private lane, then, the road should -- the private lane should not be crossed. And we all know this might be past history. We went through this before, you know, from 1995. It was decided that when this property that they wanted to develop and ours were to be developed, as one of the conditions far granting the subdivision number two for Packard Estates, that when those could be developed, then, they could partition off -- or vacate Wingate Lane, because we wouldn't need it. But this has just been one piece and not ours. So, technically, they were supposed to keep -- and one of the conditions was that they keep the gates across Challis and Meadowgrass, so they couldn't cross Wingate Lane. That was only to be for emergency vehicles. And Ada County -- Ada County Highway District decided they were going to turn it down and redo it. When my husband. and I went to the city and said, you know, these are the conditions, the first meeting they said all conditions were to be adhered to. Then, they decided they couldn't make them -- they weren't enforceable, so nothing was done, and so we have aprivate -- or a public road crossing a private lane. My husband and Ihave alawsuit -- unfortunately, we sued Ada County Highway District and the developers. It was dismissed by Judge Neville who said the. Only one that could enforce the conditions for granting that subdivision was the City of Meridian and nothing was done. My argument tonight is what laws, what codes are we going to adhere to? There is also one here that's a private use arrangement that's in the Idaho law book -- I went down to the law library -- that states, in fact, if there is interference by the subservient, which is the developer north of us, causing -- changing this condition, they are liable. The City of Meridian police department has confirmed it's a very serious hazardous condition. We have had it at Challis and Wingate and now we are going to have it at Meadowgrass and Challis and this, of course, has not been addressed. Nothing has been done to confirm or work that problem out and I find it very very difficult and I think that rather than going on and on, that we either honor the codes or why have them. If conditions are made and we are not going to enforce them, why bother? We have a real serious problem here and I think that decision, hopefully, that you make is based on fact and not as I was told Ada County Highway District has the final say and we find out that's not true, that if it's new road construction, the city has the say. When it becomes part of the system, then, Ada County Highway District does. Now, this, of course, has not been pursued and this is the thing that is so frustrating for those of us who live on Wingate Lane and I'm very sorry to say that there aren't other representatives here from Wingate Lane. I was told that Iwas -- you know, that the Sharps got the exclusive rights on this lane. We have never professed or tried to think we did. We are fighting for what we think is ours and that's a private lane. The land that was granted for the private lane is on the west side of Wingate Lane. Fifteen feet was contributed to make this lane and, like I say, 1913 when our house was built, so that we could get to our property and I have been told that they can't stop us ever from using that, because of the -- not only is it grandfathered, but it's a contractual agreement. Not with just us, but all the members of the lane, and I'm sure that if people would read the files -- and it's a pretty thick one -- they would find that there have beeh numerous letters from the residents on the lane stating the same things that I have done and I would just like to reiterate -- I would like them to adhere to some of the things that are in black and white to protect not only us, but you as the Commissioners for Planning and Zoning and also the City of Meridian. Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 46 of 60 Borup: Could you maybe just reiterate briefly what you'd like them to adhere to? Are you saying you don't want them to build Meadowgrass? H. Sharp: What I'm wanting them to do is to adhere to the conditions that the City of Meridian, the developers, and Ada County Highway District agreed to and that was to put fences across Challis and Meadowgrass, so you could not go east and west on Challis. Borup: So, you want us to tell ACHD what to do you mean? H. Sharp: I'm not telling you what to do, I'm just saying that someone needs to enforce what's supposed to be on the records. Borup: Okay. H. Sharp: And I'm saying -- Borup: It sounds to me like you may have made an argument to have Wingate Lane vacated, because it's between two public roads right now. H. Sharp: No. One of the conditions Ithink -- if you went back and read them -- it could be vacated from Challis -- Borup: No, you said it shouldn't be allowed because it's between two public roads, so it sounds like ACHD has made -- H. Sharp: Well, no, it wouldn't be -- it couldn't be -- it can't be private between Challis and Meadowgrass, because there is public road on either end of it. Borup: No. You stated between Challis and Ustick. H. Sharp: That couldn't be a private lane either. In the definition -- Borup: That's what I'm saying. You're making an argument to have that vacated and it sounds like ACHD has made a special exemption for you. H. Sharp: No. I'm not -- I'm sorry, sir. To vacate would mean that they developed the property they are trying to do a zoning for, the five acres north of us, and us, so, then, if they blocked off Wingate at Challis, it wouldn't make any difference, because the properly is beyond -- or south on Wingate Lane. Borup: So, you want that blocked off? H. Sharp: I want them to put the gates on there, so they can't cross our private lane. The question is what's private. We have got some in the County; we have got some in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 47 of 60 the City. If someone drove on your driveway, what would you do? You would call the authorities and they will say, hey, listen, Mrs. Sharp, you cannot drive on their driveway, it's. private property, so you have got to define what is private property. Our lane is a private lane. Borup: Okay. I'm just trying to -- H. Sharp: And I just don't think that we should be allowed to have public roads crossing it. Borup: Well -- but that's already happened, so that's something we can't address. But what we can address is -- H. Sharp: You can on Meadowgrass. Borup: -- the application that's before us now, so that's what I'm trying to find out what it is that you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're saying you'd like a gate. H. Sharp: I'm hoping that they don't cross Wingate Lane at Meadowgrass. According to the guidelines from Ada County -- and I'm not too sure they have even dealt or talked to Ada County on that, but some needs -- they need to have definites, because we know there are other private lanes. In fact, I think there is five or seven between Eagle Road and Linder off Ustick and they need to have some definites and not this I heard or I think or I have been told. We are dealing with fact. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did Mr. Hall want to testify? Hall: Justin Hall. I'm a current owner -- well, eight property owners in Packard Estates in both number one and number two. My concern this night is the 13-foot easement on the front property line of the home that's currently there. I support the annexation process of the subdivision. I think it will be nice to have the 20 lots, but our concern as a group of homeowners that live close by that would devalue the subdivision having a 13 foot front easement granted in this particular subdivision and I don't understand how -- you know, if we had one granted, what would stop me as a home -- a builder wanting to go in and grant another 13 foot easement? Borup: Because there would be no reason for it. This is an existing structure. Hall: But is there a hardship developed on why there should be a 13 foot versus upping the price of lots 3,000 dollars to bulldoze the house and not make the value -- I mean it doesn't seem like we are imposing a hardship on the landowner by requiring him to adhere to all the other, you know, current 20 foot setbacks in the rest of the subdivision. Zaremba: Well, what is happening is what used to be the side of his house is now, by definition, becoming the front of his house. It's still the side of his house, he hasn't moved his house, but because a new road is being put foot there, the side suddenly Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 48 of 60 becomes subject to the front setback and to mitigate that we are saying the existing setback is okay. Hall: Thirteen feet. Zaremba: Yes. The reason for the 20 feet is so that it's possible to park a car in the driveway without having your tail end of the car hanging over sidewalks or streets and their driveway is certainly long enough, since it comes in an L-shape -- Hall: And how many feet from that west boundary to the front of the house will there be? Will there be 20 feet there? Zaremba: That I don't know. We can ask the applicant that Borup: There is a representation of it right here. So, I'm assuming that the 13 feet is at this corner, the closest point. If that's correct, that's -- so you have got this distance here, plus the width of the garage would be the distance off. Zaremba: And your other point is that -- making that exception in this case does not give anybody else the right to build ahouse --anew house without the proper setback. Hall: So, how can current concerned homeowners deal with that issue if there is no -- I mean I guess that's why I came and I don't know this policy very well. Borup: Well, you have done exactly the right thing. Hall: You know, that we have been joined with quite a few other people, you know, and I made the comment at the first meeting to try to up the price -- I mean we are concerned as a homeowner on the whole community and how it's going to retain value for our current home sites and we think -- you know, as I'm voicing a concern from many other people, because I built 35 or 40 homes in the subdivision, is we have a valid concern. If it's about money, I would be willing to pay a few extra thousand dollars per lot or whatever it would be to mitigate that problem and put it in -- you know, change the home, put a front easement, so it's consistent with the other home sites. There has been another home -- Borup: How did the developer respond to that? Hall: I can't recall. I -- Borup: I mean -- Hall: I think it kind of got shot down. I'm not sure. How did you respond to that? Borup: Well, we need -- we can get that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 49 of 60 Zaremba: They will come up and respond afterwards. Borup: Or if you wanted to express that. I mean you raised that as a question. You said, you -- it was related as a possibility. I just wondered what the response was. Hall: Yeah. Commissioners, I have you -you know, just a concern to express that to you, as a group of people that I have been here to talk about and, you know, busy lifestyles haven't permitted some of the other people to be here. But the only concern that we have for the subdivision -- some people have been against it. Easements, I respect the Sharp's ideas on -- you know, concerns on safety and everything like that, which I think having it -- you know, cross there is going to be adequate, as long as people -- maybe they are going to have to move the -- recommended move the fences back a little bit so you could see up and back of Wingate Lane, so they can safely cross that with the Sharps coming in and out. But the only concern that Ihave -- and a lot of other people have expressed -- and that's why I'm here -- is the 13-foot setback. I don't understand why -- you know, how to express a concern as a group of homeowners in a large development like this to maintain the same look throughout the subdivision when we got a -- you know, Mr. Pantell here, we built a house right here, the realtor has expressed -- the representatives that this house would be not there when they chose to do this and that was a representation of the people to him as a person that that wouldn't be .there and that they would demo that out and it wouldn't affect him and so I have a concerned homeowner asking me, well, what happened here, it's not happening and that's why I presented the question to the developers, which I don't want to do this, because I have stakes and I'd like to continue building there to further my business and stuff like that, but I just think that in the overall scheme of planning and zoning, that that home could be a condition of approval of the subdivision that it could be moved, it could be passed on as a lot, the future 20 lot owners, that they could divide that up into a fee that -- we could do that and -- Borup: It sounds like you're asking the Commission to step into the private -- Hall: No, I'm not -- Borup: -into private business and dictate value of property, though. Hall: No. No. The only option that I'm saying is that as a condition of the annexation of this subdivision, is there any way that we can put a condition on this -- Borup: Well, that's what -- that's what you're asking for us to dictate. I mean if that's -- if it is a detriment -- and I don't disagree with anything you have said. That should reflect in the price of those lots. I mean a homeowner may be hesitant and so that -- you know, that lot may not sell at the same price. That's how you control that is speak with your pocket book I would think. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just point out, in approximately one month there will be a public hearing for this exact issue before the City Council. I just wanted Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 50 of 60 to point that out. There is a variance application hearing that will be held before the Council. Borup: On a similar issue? Hawkins-Clark: On just this issue of the front setback for that lot. Borup: Oh, for this lot? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: That's the whole purpose of -- it technically is not a part of this hearing Borup: That's -- and I should have explained that when we started. As was mentioned, this Commission can make arecommendation -- I mean we can express an opinion, but not make a recommendation to City Council and that is where that is decided is at City Council and, as was mentioned, that would be definitely where you would want to go and express your -- so, we have taken note of what you have said and, you know, the most we could do is maybe express how we feel about it, but we would not be even making a recommendation to the city. Hall: So, there is no reason chatting, because it doesn't matter? Borup: Well, you have had an opportunity to express and this is on the record, but the official place to express that would be at City Council. Zaremba: It does, however -- but the correct forum is not here. The correct forum is before the City Council. Borup: And you said at what date? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the date has not been set. Typically, it's about one month between the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and the City Council. Borup: After this -- whenever this application would be moved to City Council, then, part of -- the variance would be added to what -the applications we have before us. Zaremba: And that will be publicly noticed that that is happening? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it will. Hall: On site? Borup: Yes Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15. 2004 Page 51 of 60 Hawkins-Clark: There will be three ways. One would be on site. One would be everyone within 300 feet would get a direct mailing to their house. And, then, in the newspaper. So, there is three ways. But unless you like to read eight point font in the classifieds, you probably won't pick upon the latter one. Borup: So, probably, the site sign would be the best notification for you. And just being aware of it. You can check the agendas, too, knowing, approximately, that time. Hall: Well -- so, I guess just basically stated, that's our concern on annexation is that's a big concern for us as a homeowner to approve this, which I guess this is what we try to do, so -- Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Well -- and I think the point for us to understand is that we could approve or disapprove -- or I mean a recommendation on this annexation and on this plat and it has no affect on the request for the variance; right? Borup: Right. Zaremba: So, that's another issue that was only decided by the City Council whether or not that 13 foot setback is going to be accepted. But that wouldn't affect whether the plat is acceptable or not. Hawkins-Clark: If I could just add one point on that. It was brought up in the pre- application meeting if they swung the street a little bit to the south, obviously, the setback wouldn't be needed and the applicant did raise that very early on in the process to say, you know, should we even go this route. Staff felt since it's only one lot and it's only a six and a half foot difference between the required setback of 20 feet and the requested setback of 13.6 and our experience has been that that -- it doesn't have that large of an impact on property values when you have existing residences, you know, that have -- obviously, if it had an impact on the street circulation or on the -- you know, the other impacts on adjacent property owners, maybe there is some concerns, but we felt to swag the street just to accommodate a six and a half foot setback, it's better to keep the street alignment consistent and predictable. Borup: If this is an R-8 zone, 15 feet would be allowed, wouldn't it? Hawkins-Clark: It's an R-4 -- Borup: I said if. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, if. I'm sorry. No. It would be the same. It would be 20. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 52 of 60 Borup: It would be considered side loaded in this case. But I mean that's academic. This is not an R-8 zone. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Okay. Any final comments the applicant would like to make? Groves: Members of the Commission, my name is Craig Groves, I reside at 3920 East Shady Glen Court in Boise. I wanted to take a few minutes and wrap up a couple of issues that were raised in the application regarding safety and liability and let you know that as a member of Packard Estates Development, LLC, we are just as concerned with safety and liability as Mr. and Mrs. Sharp are. If you could back the screen up to the -- right there. From about that point right there north, the lane is exactly 15 feet wide, but there are no fences anywhere from that point north where there is a fence on both sides of the lane. Okay? So, it appears to be more open. Okay? The only place that there is dual fences on the lane of any significance right now is about from that point to that point, which is about 190 feet. Okay? We recognize that when there is dual fences like that, you have issues in terms of turning onto the public street or from the public street to the lane, that's why these fences are tapered to three feet for public safety issues. Our proposal in developing this five acres here is to open up the visibility in this lane by eliminating -- removing the fence on the west side of the lane that exists now, putting a two rail split cedar three feet high along the edge of the lane at the 15 feet. From that point to the houses there is an additional 42 feet that will be landscaped with a meandering path from Challis all the way to East Meadowgrass, so that pedestrians that would need to walk to school, children, or people that walk in the neighborhood, they don't have to come down this lane, they can come down through the meandering path, across the public right of way to walk to school. Okay? So, we are looking out for Mr. and Mrs. Sharp's issues on public safety. The second point I'd like to make is in regards to the private road agreement. We have no issues with the private road agreement. If you can back up two more screens. Again. Again. Right -- forward. Okay. From that point down to that point at one time we had fee title to the lane. Okay? We owned the lane. Currently, these property owners here own that lane, they have agreed not to have any access to the lane or use of the lane. However, when this five acre parcel here redevelops, okay, if they do not use that lane, the rights to that lane will revert to those property owners, so now with that in mind, if you will move forward to the landscape drawing -- there is your lane right here. And right here is an additional 20- foot of homeowners association property. It was our vision in placing this common area where it's placed, that at the time that the Sharp property redeveloped down here, and the need to use that lane would go away, that the property owners association could go in and expand this common area, which is centrally located in the community, for a nice open space for the entire community. Does that make sense? Okay. And in regards to the 20 feet that staff has asked us to dedicate an additional five feet here along the lane and an additional five feet down to the Sharp properties, which would be right here, we made offer and proposal years ago to Mr. Sharp to give him a deeded access of 20 feet from the edge of his property here to East Meadowgrass, deeded to him, pave it for him, and, if necessary, put up a private gate for him. They rejected that offer and at this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 53 of 80 point, you know, we have spent thousands and thousands of dollars protecting our rights that we could be reimbursed, but we have agreed to let it go. We don't see any need why we should have to give anymore ground on that and we would request -- Borup: That was a written offer? Groves: No. It was a verbal offer. Borup: Verbal offer? Groves: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. Groves: Okay? We see no reason that we should have to do that at this point. Thank you. Borup: Questions for Mr. Groves from anyone? Any comments on the gate. Would there been any problem, other than what ACHD would allow, of putting the gate up on Meadowgrass? Groves: Are you speaking about the gate that originally was right here? Borup; No. I'm talking about putting a new gate right here. Groves: What Mrs. Sharp wants is she wants a gate across the private -- across the public right of way. She doesn't want the gate -- Borup: Oh. Groves: -- across the lane, she wants it across the public right of way and that's more of a public safety issue -- Borup: Oh. I misunderstood that. Groves: Yeah. Borup: I thought she wanted it across the private lane, so cars wouldn't drive down it. Groves: No. Zaremba: I understood it this way. Borup: All right. I misunderstood. Groves: Any other questions? Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 54 of 80 Borup: No. Thank you. Maybe the only thing -- I think might -- comments from staff would be on -- on the 15 or 20 foot. To me is that mainly our issue? Anything else any Commissioners feel that ought to be discussed? Zaremba: That would be the only discussion I would think and my opinion would be if the traffic on Wingate Lane is only moving north and south and they are not turning onto the other public roads, there is no need to widen it. Their stated desire is to use Wingate Lane to go from their property to Ustick and back. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, that was a little bit of an oversight on my part. I didn't look into that as well I should have. I was thinking that the reason for the expansion to 20 feet was emergency access. Borup: And you thought it went the whole way, from how I read the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: So, I do understand Mr. Tealey's testimony and would agree. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: So, we could give up on page eight, paragraph five, give up B and C. Hawkins-Clark: B only. Borup: Oh. Right. That's limiting the access and -- and that same C is the same thing they have done on the other as far as the -- releasing the interest and -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: -- and nothing happening on the rest of the subdivision up to this point? Okay. Hawkins-Clark: And just to clarify that the -- condition number two and three on page seven, regarding the accessibility of the open space and the fencing, could potentially be deleted by the Commissioners. I think that -- if you feel that those have been addressed tonight. Borup: Well, they have in these exhibits only, I think, and plus the testimony. Is that what you mean? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: I don't think it would -- it wouldn't benefit this council for you, in your recommendation, to keep those in there, I guess is my point. They have been addressed. Meridian Planning iS Zoning Commisslon April 15, 2004 Page 55 of 60 Borup: Right. Okay. Yeah. Both of those have been addressed. Hawkins-Clark: And, then, item number six regarding the permanent fencing, if you're agreeing with the applicant's proposal, it would also change, regarding that split rail fence on the open space, because right now it says a solid fence. Where it says a permanent fence matching the existing one, which is -- Borup: So, it could state a permanent fence as proposed by the applicant shall be constructed? Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Yes. Borup: I think the only other clarification Mr. Tealey made was that Nampa-Meridian was the irrigation district maintaining the system for item number 11. Zaremba: That's item eleven. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to clarify Mrs. Sharp wanting a gate across the public road. We have no jurisdiction in that area to make a decision on it one way or another, do we? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, that's correct. In the summary of my staff report I mentioned aplat -- final application that the city initiated last year, which proposed -- and the City Council did approve it -- to remove that condition, because it was a condition of Packard Acres to begin with, that they had to construct that gate. The City Council approved that. But, then, Ada County Highway District went back and held a hearing and they determined that that was obstructing a public right of way and that the gate should be removed. So, then, after ACHD made that decision, the City Council, then, last year chose to remove the condition that was originally part of Packard Acres final plat that said they had to have a gate. So, you know, I think we have been down that road and that's been removed, so I -- yes, I guess I would agree with you, that it's Ada County Highway District -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's fine. I just needed to clarify. Thank you Borup: Okay. I think we still have a hearing open. Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Pubic Hearing on Items 12 and 13 Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing on Items 12 and 13. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Paga 56 of 80 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, AZ 04-005, request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3, by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road, to the include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 15th, received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, PP 04-006, request for preliminary plat approval of 20 single family residential building lots and two common lots on 5.273 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, under site specific conditions of approval, preliminary plat, paragraph two can be deleted. Paragraph three can be deleted as satisfied by the applicant. Borup: When you say paragraph three, you mean item one and two under special conditions? Zaremba: Under site-specific conditions of approval preliminary plat, paragraph two, that starts: At least ten days prior -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That can be deleted. And the following paragraph three that says at the P&Z Commission Public Hearing, which they did. That can be deleted. Am I in the right place? Borup: Yes. I think he also mentioned that the two up above could be deleted also. The whole special considerations. Am I stating that correctly? Zaremba: I didn't hear that. Hawkins-Clark: We do not include special considerations in -- Borup: Okay. That's not part of the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 57 of 60 Hawkins-Clark: -- in the recommendations. We only include site specific and general conditions, not special considerations. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Unless you want us to. Borup: Well, no, they were eliminated anyway. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: All right. So, two and three. Zaremba: All right. Continuing with the motion. On page eight, paragraph five, subparagraph B can be deleted. Again, on page eight, paragraph six, shall be changed to read: A permanent split rail fence, as proposed by the applicant, shall be constructed by the developer on the western boundary of Wingate Lane road easement. And in reference to paragraph 11, which begins on page eight, the applicant has answered that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will own and maintain the irrigation system. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 14: Public Hearing: RZ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79 single-family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single-family lots in addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79 single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: