September 16, 2004 P&Z Minutes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 9 of 72
Item 10:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.27
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by
Packard Estates Development, LLC - east of North Locust Grove Road
and south of East Ustick Road:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20
single family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 5.27 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard
Estates Development, LLC - east of North Locust Grove Road and south
of East Ustick Road:
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Our next hearings are AZ 04-005, a request for
annexation and zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Packard Acres
Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates Development and accompanying that is Public
Hearing PP 04-006, request for preliminary plat approval of 20 single family residential
building lots, one common lot on the same 5.27 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
Packard Estates Subdivision. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with
the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. You, no
doubt, recognize this plan, since you just saw it a couple of months ago. Your
recommendation for approval did go on to the City Council and at the City Council
Public Hearing the Council felt that the location of the open space in their first plan
should -- which was on Wingate Lane, should be shifted away from Wingate to be more
internal to the project. There was also quite a bit of discussion about an existing house
that is on this acreage and there was a variance application that also went with -- that
this Commission did not see, but that the Council did see and they did not feel that a
reduced setback for that existing house should be approved. So, because of the
variance, the existing house, the change in open space, they remanded it back to you.
The annexation request actually does not change from your recommendation, which
was R-4. They did make a slight modification at first to try R-B, then, they withdrew that
from our office before you had a hearing and changed it back to R-4. So, I guess I won't
spend much time on that, since you have -- there is virtually no change to the
annexation request from what you saw a few months ago. The application remains for
an R-4 request, which is the same zoning as Packard Acres No.2, which is to the north,
and Packard Acres No.1, which is to the east. As you can see, those -- both of those
subdivisions are platted out, as well as Chateau Meadows, which is R-B. Ustick Road is
approximately a half mile to the north and I did want to make just one clarification that
Ada County Highway District report does refer to Wingate Lane being one-third mile in
length and that's incorrect, it is, actually, a half mile in length from Ustick Road down to
the south boundary of the Sharp's property, which is this five acres located here south
of the proposed Packard Acres No.3. Here is the aerial photo, which shows the build
out. You can kind of see the house on this, which at this point is proposed to be
removed. This is the layout of the preliminary plat before you for Item No. 11. Wingate
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 10 of 72
Lane exists over here on the east boundary. East Challis Street is already constructed
on the, north. They are proposing to extend Devlon from its current terminus here to the
south and, then, they would stub it at their south boundary for future extension. And
East Meadowgrass Street, which currently is stubbed to the east part of Packard Acres
--or the west boundary of Packard Acres No.1, they are proposing to extend East
Meadowgrass across Wingate as a public street. You can see the existing house
located here. As I just mentioned, they are proposing to remove that house. No access
-- there are three lots right here and, then, 21, and I think this is eleven, that all have a
shared boundary with Wingate Lane. They actually have a 15-foot wide easement that
is for the private lane that is dedicated on their east boundary and they would not be
able to have access to the private lane, which is the same condition that is placed on
Packard Acres No.2 above, which also says that if your property is on Wingate Lane,
you are prohibited from actually accessing Wingate, you have to use the public street
system that's being built by the developer. A couple of items to point out in the staff
report. They are proposing 20 build-able lots and one common lot. The common lot is
shown here in green over on Devlon would be a joint open space storm water facility.
On the annexation and zoning, staff has reviewed the findings, we feel that they can all
be made and we are recommending approval of the annexation to an R-4. On page
eight of the staff report, the site-specific conditions are recommended there for the
preliminary plat. And we are -- item number three deals with the -- with Wingate Lane
and direct lot access to Wingate is specifically prohibited for this subdivision. Item 3B
states to widen the Wingate Lane private road easement width to 20 feet. Today it's 15.
And I did talk with the -- originally that was put in there because of the standard
Meridian fire department condition that says they want 20, for 20 foot free and clear for
access. I did ask Deputy Chief Silva what his opinion was on that. Frankly, he felt that
he could go either way. His opinion is that they will use the public streets to access this
site and so he -- you know, like I say, I mean this is up to the Commission. The
applicant would like to keep it at 15. It has historically been 15. Staff is, in this case,
going to, you know, go with what the fire department says and what the Commission
feels is appropriate. So, we would support keeping it at the existing 15 feet, if the
Commission so desires to do that.
Borup: What -- how was to the north handled?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, to the north it's 15 feet up until you hit the north boundary of
Packard Acres No.2 and it was widened to 20 feet there, but it was widened on the east
side of Wingate Lane, so -- does that make sense? I can go back --
Borup: No. I understand.
consistent, then, with --
So, 15 would be -- the west property line would be
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: -- along the whole length?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16. 2004
Page 11 of72
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. If the city -- yeah. If you were asking them to put five
feet on the west side, you would, essentially, have a little bit of a jog in Wingate Lane,
because you have 15 and, then, on Packard No.2 it jogs to the east for five feet and it
becomes 20 feet for a couple hundred feet and, then, once it hits this phase it would
technically choke down back to 15, bearing in mind that the street itself -- that the
private lane itself is -- you don't see that. We are just talking about the easement width.
I mean it looks just like a gravel straight lane all the way from Ustick down. The 20-foot
was also an advantage for the Ada County Highway District, who does have a storm
water retention pond on the east side of Wingate Lane. It's in this lot right here. This
line here -- doesn't show very well, but this is the Wingate Lane coming down and, then,
this lot on the east side is an ACHD storm water retention lot that is owned by the
homeowners association and they wanted a little bit more width also to access that
should they ever need to get in there.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: Public Works comments were added in there. The extension of city
sewer and water is pretty straightforward on this development. I think at that point,
unless you have any other questions, that ends staff's presentation,
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Is the street -- I'm trying to remember back to the first Packard
Estates. Is the street the same? Did they just move the green space?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, yes, the street locations are the same.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: The lot layout is essentially the same as well, it's just that's before they
had the open space there on the east.
Newton-Huckabay: And a walking path that went down the east side of the property?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Right.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: As I recall, there may have been a little bit of a meander to this street to get
around the fact that the existing residence, which they are planned to stay there, was
too close to the street, but if that residence goes away, now this is straight, but I believe
that may have been a change between then and now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16. 2004
Page 120f72
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, yes.
Newton-Huckabay: The house is going away or is proposed to go away?
Hawkins-Clark: They are proposing to remove it.
application with us anymore and --
They do not have a variance
Borup: Okay. 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, and I'm here to represent the developers of Packard
Acres Subdivision No.3. The developer's also here if you have any questions that I
can't answer or you'd rather address them, rather than ask me the question. Now, what
you see before you is an application for a 21-lot subdivision with one common open
space. You're seeing this again, because we failed in the attempt to get a variance for
that house that's on the property. We needed a variance of a foot and a half. The
corner of the garage -- I guess see if I can make this thing work. The corner of the
garage right in here would have encroached a foot and a half into the setback from the
property line here. The City Council did not want us -- did not grant the variance, so,
basically, that was one of the problems that we had. The other was that we had the
common open space over in here, which we thought at the time was the place that it
should be. They asked us to go back and without the granting of the variance and to
move the common lot over in this area and remanded it back to you. We have worked
with the homeowners association and come up with a solution. Our original application
was for 23 lots and one common area, so 22 build-able lots. What we did was come
back and eliminate this home right in here. Part of your condition should be that we
take this home out and I'm sure you can make that condition, because we don't -- we
don't have the variance for the setback and we eliminated two lots. Our first application
was for 22 build-able lots, the one that you approved, and we are back here with 20
build-able lots. So, it is quite a change for us to eliminate the house that was there,
which was -- had a certain amount of value, approximately 150,000 dollars, and to
eliminate the two lots that -- that we -- after talking with the association and the
neighbors in there, that we decided to -- to do. The green area there is not a common --
it's a common area for landscaping and common use, it's not for storm drainage. Our
storm drainage retention -- or, excuse me, our storm drainage system is over here and
you can see it right here along the road. So, that won't be a dual use, it's just for
common area. There won't be any drainage encumbering that lot right there.
Borup: On the north end of it?
Tealey: Pardon me?
Borup: On the north end of the lot, the plat's dotted line?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16. 2004
Page 130f72
Tealey: Right up in here there is an existing easement from Packard Acres No.2 that
does contain drainage right here for this ACHD street. I just didn't want you to think that
we were going to use that as a storm retention pond.
Borup: Right. That's the way I understood it, too.
Tealey: The issue of Wingate Street -- or Wingate, the private lane, being expanded to
20 feet, originally when we went through the application that you approved a couple
months ago we talked it through and you saw the same -- saw it the same way that we
did, was just to keep that at 15 feet and we eliminated that condition in there. The
reason for the expansion of Wingate to 20 feet just north of Challis there was to facilitate
the ACHD getting back to that drainage pond. That's the only place where Wingate
Lane is 20 feet for that half mile and it's some 100 feet long, I would guess, to get back
to that common lot in there. So, that was the reason that staff originally requested the
extension of Wingate to be 20 feet, instead of 1B. And, again, the five feet that we grant
to ACHD for their entrance into that pond was on the east side, so they wouldn't align
regardless. And the emergency vehicle access has already been addressed with the
fire department and they choose to use the public roads, rather than coming down
Wingate anyway. So, the reason for extending it 20 feet isn't there and we would ask
you to eliminate that portion of the conditions. If there are any questions, I would be
glad to answer them.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I do have a couple. In the ACHD report on page five, I believe it is, they are
requiring that on Wingate Lane --
Tealey: Pardon me?
Zaremba: They are requiring that you pave portions of Wingate Lane the whole width
and 30 feet back from the -- you're aware of those requirements and --
Tealey: Yes. That's a standard requirement of the highway district for--
Zaremba: That they don't want gravel and dust tracked out onto their roadway.
Tealey: Right.
Zaremba: So you're aware of that?
Tealey: We understand that.
Zaremba: Okay. Then on page eight of our staff report, number one asks us to
determine with you what the perimeter fencing is going to be. There is also a number
four that specifies that the fencing that's going to go along Wingate Lane shall match the
fencing of Packard Acres No.2 and I would kind of combine those two thoughts and ask
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 14 of 72
you is -- can you make your perimeter fencing match the existing fence in Packard
Acres No.2 where ever you need perimeter fencing?
Tealey: Yes, And I think the perimeter fencing along the south between the property to
the south and ours is already there.
Zaremba: Okay.
Tealey: And, yeah, we would agree to match that fencing,
Zaremba: While you're there let me ask staff. Does this portion need to be fenced as
well?
Tealey: That's already fenced, though.
Zaremba: That's already fenced? Okay. So--
Hawkins-Clark: South boundary would be --
Zaremba: Just between this property and the Sharp's property. And you're not asking
that the applicant to reference it if it doesn't match the Packard Estate's fence or does it
match the Packard Estates fence?
Tealey: It matched -- oh, excuse me.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess just wanted to get that on the record to clarify tonight,
so--
Zaremba: Okay. So, even if it doesn't match, the fact that there is an existing fence is
satisfactory, I guess.
Tealey: We built it according to the Meridian city standards when we -- I don't know the
exact time, but it's been some months ago that we built it.
Zaremba: Okay. And what you're going to build along Wingate Lane, that will match
what's in Packard Estates?
Tealey: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Tealey: I think we have an extension of a pole fence that goes down there now, but we
will take that out and match whatever fence that's needed to be put in there.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 15 of 72
Borup: Do you have any questions, Wendy?
Newton-Huckabay: No. Thank you.
Borup: All right. Thank you. Okay. Time for public testimony. Do we have anyone
that would like to come forward and testify? Okay. Seeing none -- now is the time.
This is the time for public testimony.
Sharp: I'm Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane and we are not objecting to the annexation
or the development of the subdivision, but we are objecting to any encroachment of
Wingate Lane. We already have a dangerous situation when you cross Challis there.
People are coming down there pretty fast and there is lots of kids and they open it up on
East Meadowgrass and they were coming -- kids going to school and coming from
school and cars don't mix on a 15 foot wide lane. So, we are thinking that should be
expanded to 20 feet for emergency vehicles and for fire trucks. We have a residence
south of that and they need to get down there to -- and as far as the common area,
there is a common area on the west side between Challis and East Meadowgrass, that
has been blocked off for use by the people in the subdivision, so those people are using
Wingate Lane to walk down there, bicycle, and there is also cars coming from the
subdivision and also coming from Ustick down and the two do not mix. It's a dangerous
and hazardous situation and if you want take on the liability for this, then, we will be the
first one to testify if there is any problems down there, that it's city, ACHD, and the
developer that has caused this problem, if you cross -- keep crossing over Wingate
Lane and using Wingate Lane. The people should be using the common area to the --
to the west between -- between Challis and Meadowgrass and so this is what we -- and
any use -- any use by the contractors of Wingate Lane should be done, but off the
public streets. And that's --
Borup: So, you're not concerned that widening Wingate will encourage traffic?
Sharp: Right now we will get it either way. You are getting it, Mr. Borup. We don't have
-- they finally put in barricades after my wife called ACHD and they should have done
this a long time ago when they stubbed Meadowgrass and that stopped, you know, all
those cars coming and going there from Challis and, then, also from Ustick down there
and using Meadowgrass and we observe this everyday, the kids going and coming from
school, and the cars that would come down there and use Wingate Lane and they
shouldn't be. They should be using that -- the people walking should be using that
common area to the west, but they got a fence across there and they got landscape
there and I understand that should be just sod or pathway through there, so people can
use that, rather than Wingate Lane. But, you know, that's what we are saying. We
know that there is going to be a certain amount of traffic, which is -- they shouldn't be
using it, but if you widen that to 20 feet, at least those kids might have a chance, if they
are using it if a car -- and they -- those cars come down there fast, too. We observe it
every day. Not since the barricades, mind you.
Borup: Okay. So, the barricades have worked.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 160f72
Sharp: Oh, you bet you. It helped.
Borup: Other questions?
Zaremba: I do. I guess a suggestion. Have you thought of putting any signs up that
would say private property, no trespassing?
Sharp: We are putting them up. Yes.
Zaremba: I think that would help.
Sharp: Now, we got -- there is two -- one up to Ustick and there is one just on the north
side of Challis and there is going to be two more that says no more trespassing,
violators will be prosecuted by Idaho code and so the sheriff said that he would --
Zaremba: Enforce that?
Sharp: -- enforce it. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Barber: My name is Sonya Barber and I live at 2437 East Challis, so I live on the corner
of Wingate and Challis. Can you put that other picture back up, please? When I
purchased the home a year ago --
Hawkins-Clark: Is that the one you want?
Barber: No. It had -- it was the alley.
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, the photo?
Barber: Yeah. There. So, this fence line right here, my property is right on the other
side, so I am the homeowner right there. And there is no houses on the other side of
this fence. And this rock alley here, I'm not sure on the exact length, but it's probably
200 feet long. It's my house and our neighbors behind us and, then, it is blocked off,
they just put a block out there. So, as far as a lot of traffic going there now, it would be
Mr. Sharp and, then, the people that rent the house that's going to be torn down. So,
traffic is nill, there is not much at all, because it's only -- it's not that far and there is two
homeowners that live there. My deal here is that when I moved in it was not disclosed
to me at all -- there is nothing on this stating that they were going to take 21 feet of this
property, which is my side yard, which is pretty major. I had no idea it was a commons
area. The property line is right there and, then, there is 20 feet on my property, which
when I purchased the house it was all landscaped, sprinkler systems, and the fence
was put up. So, I had absolutely no idea, no reason to think that there was common
area there. As far as the kids and the safety that he was talking about, there is a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 17 of 72
sidewalk, the streets definitely are not a safe place for them, but as far as kids going
down this alley and it being unsafe, I have four of my own, they use this alley every day,
either bikes or walking. There is two homeowners on this street we are talking about
that have access to it. Well, anyone has access, but it is private, that would use that
road. But nobody else can really get to it. If they come down here there is a dead end.
So, it is safer than going out on Challis or any of the other streets and there is a
sidewalk to walk on all through the subdivisions. So, I'm sure you can see where I'm at,
losing my entire side yard, my whole house - I have a wrap-around porch, it all looks
right at all of this land that I was totally mislead by my realtor and my builder who
developed it and build it all. I don't see why they cannot take this, if they want to add
more -- what, take the 15 feet to 20, do it that way. This is not developed over here. I
mean I don't know anything about zoning and all that, but that's not done, you have two
property owners that have landscaped now. It doesn't make any sense. And if you
were to see it, you would know what I'm talking about.
Borup: Okay.
Barber: So, I'm just asking if they can, please, not move that common area, do it on a
different side.
Borup: Thank you. Okay. We had someone else?
H.Sharp: Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane. I sympathize with her, but the area that
she's talking about was the designated five percent common area and, of course, it
should be and I feel sorry for her that they didn't notify her. But what I'm talking about is
our -- what she considered an alley is our private lane. We have a private road
easement agreement that was established in 1913. It's still on record. It has never
been amended or changed in any way and still it's being ignored. One of the
statements on this is that's to be for the owners and the use of the owners. But we find
that that's not what's happening. The easement that was granted where the young man
is standing in the picture is East Challis Road, was bisecting, of course, crossing
Wingate Lane, the argument being that the developers say we own that part of Wingate
Lane and they do, but when they sell off all those lots along Wingate Lane, they are not
any longer the owners of Wingate Lane, where does that leave their easement. An
easement does not grant ownership. We have easement on the south of our property
for Nampa Irrigation. We also pay the taxes and maintain it. We can't do anything
further with it, so -- but they are not owners, we are. If they grant an easement, which
they have done to ACHD, they are not owners and it's specific in that document and it's
recorded. There is also a document in the state of Idaho law library -- and I forwarded
that on to the regular agencies, that states if the subservient, which is the developer,
has caused a hazardous condition by an easement, it has to be addressed. They have
caused a safety hazard by crossing Wingate Lane. Everybody knows where there is
crossroads there is a potential hazard, excuse me, and that has been confirmed by the
City of Meridian police department. As far as not addressing or ignoring this, I have a
real problem. Do we get to pick and choose the laws, the codes, or whatever that we
want to adhere to and I think it's time that we admit that we have to abide by a 1913
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 180f72
road agreement that has never been amended and would have to be amended by the
property owners. The owners, technically, are the ones on the west side of Wingate
Lane, because they have relinquished 15 feet of their property.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Come forward, sir.
Gallagher: Good evening. My name is Chip Gallagher and I live at 3020 North Wingate
Lane, which is the north end of the lane about 350 yards off of Ustick. About a year and
a half ago during the construction of Packard Estates No.2, they crossed Wingate Lane
with their public street. This was in defiance to a verbal agreement with ACHD and it
was in defiance of a condition of approval that you placed on the subdivision. We, then,
took that issue up with the ACHD board and had a Public Hearing. At that Public
Hearing I asked to have a recess with the ACHD staff and the homeowners of Wingate
to try to mitigate the potential problem of excessive traffic that we would incur on
Wingate. The developer at that time agreed to pay for a private gate at the south end of
Wingate Lane that the Sharps would have access to only and their guests and friends,
but it prevents the rest of us at the north end from that additional traffic. We, then, went
back to the ACHD board and during that Public Hearing the developer again reiterated
his willingness to pay for that private gate to protect us on the north end. It, then, came
before the City Council, because there was a condition placed that that Wingate Lane
would not be crossed with a public street until the south properties were developed. In
defiance of that they crossed the street. The City Council, I think, felt their hands were
tied, because it was an ACHD issue. However, the developer came forward again and
said that he would pay for a private gate to protect us. I'm asking you to place a
condition on this phase that that gate be funded into an escrow account until those of us
at Wingate Lane can unilaterally agree to maintain it. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Maybe questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I just want clarification. You want the gate at the north -- northern
most part of the Sharp property?
Gallagher: No. We don't care if it's at the north end of the property, which is down by
my house -- the Premos have agreed to give up the property there for the gate, or the
south end, just that there be a private gate at one end or the other of that lane, because
we are incurring tremendous traffic from Packard Estates and Packard Estates guests.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, you just want a gate somewhere on the north-south
span of Wingate Lane?
Gallagher: Right. All we are asking for is what was agreed to in those three public
hearings be placed as a condition on this map.
Newton-Huckabay: At the spot of your choosing or one -- or just agreed with the
developer?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16. 2004
Page1gof72
Gallagher: Yeah. At the place of our choosing.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher.
Borup: And, then, it sounds like at this point you don't have a real preference as far as
location?
Gallagher: No. I think logistically it probably makes more sense at the north end. The
Premos are right across the street from me and they own that section of the lane and
they have agreed to give us an easement for that gate, as opposed to the south end,
which I believe is owned by the property owners that back up to Wingate Lane all the
way down the street, actually. It's the western property owners that actually own the
lane and have granted the easement. So, in order not to have any conflict with the
purchasers of Packard Estates, we are fine with putting it at the north end where we
own that.
Borup: North end of what?
Gallagher: Wingate, down by Ustick.
Borup: Clear down by Ustick?
Gallagher; Yeah. Something that we can put dead end at one end, we could put dead
end up at Challis, dead end street, privacy gate at the far end by Ustick, probably
makes the most sense.
Borup: Well, Challis is right here; is that correct?
Gallagher: Right. I'll say -- so if you travel --
Borup: And you're saying put the gate clear up there at Ustick?
Gallagher: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: That would eliminate any homeowner of Packard Estates, because
they couldn't access, and they wouldn't have --
Gallagher: Right.
Borup: Well, but wouldn't that accomplish the same thing, putting the gate right here
would keep Packard out and, then, all these homeowners here -- that would be at your
convenience, but that would be up to --
Gallagher: Well, we are fine with that. That would be fine. I was -- we were just a little
concerned that the property owners on Packard at the south end of the lane own the
lane, the new homeowners, and they may not be as agreeable.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 20 of 72
Newton-Huckabay: Now, they own it, but can't use it; is that correct?
Gallagher: Right. Right. Well, they have it fenced right now.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. But they don't have access to use it.
Gallagher: Right.
Zaremba: The same way that the Sharps would have to either have a key to it or a
combination to it, those houses that back up to it could have a key. I mean if it's an
easement on a portion that they actually own and if they have the key to it, that's only
four more households that have a key to it.
Gallagher: The south end is fine. We just -- you know, we have got young kids and the
traffic is just completely out of control and -- I mean you can review the public record,
this has been promised to us, but, yet, here we are again. So,if we put a condition on
it, get the money set aside in a fund until we all agree --
Borup: So, you're not in agreement right now?
Gallagher: We are all in agreement except the Sharps. The Sharps are having an
issue with this gate. But we think we can get beyond that.
Borup: Okay.
Gallagher: But we want the funds set aside, so that when we do it's there to build a
gate as promised. Am I making any sense here?
Borup: I didn't realize Sharps were opposed to the gate. I thought they wanted a gate.
I mean they said they wanted barricades, so --
Gallagher: Barricades are fine. We are all for the barricades, but the Sharps have an
easement to Wingate Lane, so we are honoring that by saying a security gate with a
code or a door -- or a garage opener opens the gate, free and passable, and we have
all on the north end have agreed to maintain the gate. Sharps don't have to maintain it.
Borup: And I was going to ask staff this, but maybe you can tell me, what was ACHD's
attitude on the gate?
Gallagher: They loved it. I mean that's why we had that little roundtable with their staff.
How can we mitigate this, because the lane was crossed, the damage was done, how
are we going to fix it? Well, the fix was put up a privacy gate for the use of the Wingate
homeowners only and here we are. And my last conversation with the developer was,
no, we are not going to do that. I mean that's kind of what has prompted this request for
a condition. Not that they will listen to it --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 21 of 72
Borup: Oh, you're saying they have changed their -- previously they said they would
and now they say they won't?
Gallagher: Yeah. Currently, as of today, they are saying, no, they won't. So, I'm asking
on behalf of the north homeowners that you make it a condition of this map, have the
fund set aside until we unilaterally agree --
Borup: And what if you don't agree?
Gallagher: They get the money back. I'm fine with that. It's not -- it's not blood money,
This is -- we are just trying to protect our lifestyles.
Borup: And would there be any sunset on that, some kind of a time frame?
Gallagher: Yeah, we can do that. That's negotiable. A couple of years. Because this
may take awhile. No. I don't care. Put a reasonable time line on it. I'm fine with that.
Zaremba: My comment would be that it's not unusual to protect private property by
putting up gates and this easement is theoretically private property. I mean it's the
same as if you needed to gate your own driveway.
Gallagher: That's right. That's why the ACHD supports it.
Zaremba: A gate is not unusual.
Gallagher: Right. And it doesn't restrict the Sharps from traveling up and down
Wingate, so I think we can get beyond that. Mr. Borup, you can place a time line on it
that you feel is reasonable. I just want to make sure that the funds are there, so when
we do settle this, the gate gets built.
Borup: Yeah. Well, I hate to see things drag on too long either.
Gallagher: Yeah. I agree. Well, we think we have the legal right to build the gate, so --
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Gallagher: Okay. Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you, Mr. Gallagher.
Borup: Brad, has that been discussed on staff level on the gate? I mean I know in the
past, but have you got anything additional to add to the gate issue?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, a couple of things. One is if the Commission chooses
to go that way tonight, there is a couple of implementation issues that staff would have
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 16,2004
Page 22 of 72
on that. Number one is that Ada County ordinances prohibit gates on private lanes.
The question is if they put the gate on a portion of Wingate that has been annexed, is
that -- is that something that Ada County technically doesn't have jurisdiction on,
because you have on Wingate Lane -- you technically do have property that is -- you
know, that is in both jurisdictions, both Ada County on the north and you hit a portion of
city limits and, then, you go out of it when you get next to the Sharps, so -- but in terms
of the original agreement, there are reams of paper that we would be happy to share
with you between the agencies. Our understanding is that -- that the public right of way
portion cannot be obstructed. So, if I understood the testimony correct, the gate would
actually be on the private lane, but I guess, you know, there is just questions that we
have about -- since there is a code in Ada County that says private lanes cannot have
gates, how do you deal with that.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else from the public to testify? Okay, sir.
Battaglia: Dave Battaglia, 2527 East Lochmeadow, L-o-c-h-m-e-a-d-o-w, Street. I am
the Packard Estates homeowner's association president, so I'm speaking as a president
for the homeowners association, as well as a homeowner. I just wanted really actually
clarifications and Brad you did bring that up. Article D from the Ada County ordinance,
private roads, access to properties that do not have frontage on a public street, number
five in section A, gates or other travelway obstacles shall not be allowed. So, I just
thought you should know that. If we are talking gates, it is a public ordinance, as you
mentioned, so it might have to be addressed further by whoever. Okay? So just FYI.
Secondly --
Zaremba: That was an Ada County ordinance you're reading; is that correct?
Battaglia: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Okay.
Battaglia: Secondly, right here I just want clarification. This part right here, that will be -
- or did I understand that it is a fence that will be supported by the Packard Estates?
Right now it is a chain link fence. We are putting up -- the developer will be putting up a
wood fence that matches the entire subdivision as it sits right -- is that what was said
earlier?
Zaremba: What I understood is that the chain link fence is new and that's what they
propose.
Borup: And it would stay there.
Battaglia: Okay. As Packard Estates, our homeowners association, we would like to
see noted that that is a like fence that should be up and I think that's not going to be a
problem with the developer. Okay?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 16. 2004
Page 23 of 72
Zaremba: We will get that clarification.
Battaglia: Perfect. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Is that a six foot wood fence?
Battaglia: Six foot wood -- or six foot cedar. Yeah. Postage stamp style.
Borup: That is what's existing now you're saying?
Battaglia: What's existing now is a chain link fence right her.
Borup: Right. But isn't that a new fence?
Battaglia: I think it is new. But I don't know who built it or put it or whatever. But if
Packard homes are going to go in along this, I think there is like eight homes or
whatever, we would like to see it as a fence that matches the subdivision.
Borup: Okay.
Battaglia: And I know that's going to blink soon. The house to be removed,
Commissioner Newton, you had mentioned that -- is that house going away proposed or
is it going away? I heard proposed. I just want to make sure that that house that sits
right here is going away. Did I miss --
Borup: It's going away if this is approved.
Battaglia: If it's approved. Okay. Great.
Zaremba: The whole subdivision is proposed and they use that wording for things that"
Battaglia: Got you. Thank you.
Zaremba: But it is a condition that the staff has placed on, that it be removed.
Battaglia: Okay. Great. Thank you. And, Brad, sorry, can you put up the one picture--
could you, please, put up the picture that had the plat on it? A question arose about a
drainage here. This is an easement -- right now it's all dirt, but it looks like they are
going to do something right here. When they mentioned sewer here, is that
underground sewer is what they mean?
Borup: No. They mentioned storm drainage there.
Battaglia: I'm sorry, storm drainage. Is that underground right there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16,2004
Page 24 of 72
Borup: That's my understanding. We can get a clarification.
Battaglia: Could we get a clarification on that to assure that it's under?
Borup: Yeah. It's not big enough for anything else.
Battaglia: Okay. Thank you. And the last one -- I hate to do this -- Wingate Lane
again, the alley. It's been brought to our attention today by ACHD that, actually,
Packard -- we want to make sure that we retain as the homeowners of Packard Estates,
it's like 200 or so feet, because behind this house right here is that drainage ditch.
Could you go to that one -- yeah. Thank you. Right here is a drainage ditch common
area that we take care of, that we maintain. Whatever happens on Wingate Lane, we
want to assure that we still have access to that and so there just needs to be some
clarification, because the only access to this lot is out Wingate Lane, which is a private
driver, and we just want to make sure that we adhere or obtain that access.
Borup: Okay. So if a gate went up --
Battaglia: We would need a key.
Borup: To handle that access.
Battaglia: Yeah.
Zaremba: Or the alternative would be if the gate were actually along this -- my hand's
shaking.
Battaglia: If it was right here?
Zaremba: Yeah. You're doing that better than I was.
Battaglia: Yeah.
Zaremba: If the gate were right there, is that satisfactory?
Battaglia: That would -- I don't think the homeowners would have a problem with that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Battaglia: And that's it. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16. 2004
Page 25 of 72
Borup: Okay. I think that concluded everybody that signed up. Was there anyone else
that had any -- not unless there is any questions from -- there may be some additional
questions from the Commission on the gate issue. I don't know. Is there anybody else
we would like additional information from?
Zaremba: Well, I'm going with staff's assessment that if it were, actually, within
annexed property that's part of the city, then, the Ada County ordinance doesn't apply.
It sounds like all parties would be greatly comforted if the gate were there. Having it put
approximately on the north boundary of what I think is Packard Acres No.1 crossing
that lane. Yes. Right where that's being indicated -- would still put it within city limits
and not be subject to the Ada County ordinance and, actually, if it were there I'm not
sure keys would even need to be supplied to the four people that back up to it, but that's
possible. The only other issue would be -- if, you know, the fire department has already
said they don't plan to use Wingate Lane, but would they need to be able to get through
it if they had to? I see staff nodding yes,
Hawkins-Clark: It's a good question. Obviously, there is -- it's a more direct route to get
into this area to use Wingate Lane and -- but as I was told by Deputy Chief Silva, they --
Zaremba: That wouldn't be their first choice.
Hawkins-Clark: That would not be their first choice. Correct.
Zaremba: Because the roads are wider and not gravel and -
Newton-Huckabay: Could we go ahead and close the Public Hearing and have our
discussion, then?
Zaremba: il would let the applicant respond.
Borup: Yeah. He hasn't had his chance yet, but --
Zaremba: '!Ve are bringing up questions that he may want to respond to.
Borup: But I would be interested in some comment from the Sharps on the gate.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Wduld one of the Sharps care to come forward, if you'd like? And my --
H.Sharp: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead and maybe state your name again, Mrs. Sharp.
H.Sharp: Oh, Helen Sharp.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 26 of 72
Borup: Okay. Earlier you had said something about that it -- that it had barricades up
and I'm not sure where those barricades were, but you like the idea of the barricades it
sounded like.
H.Sharp: As we all know riding around in Meridian, if it's a dead end street that butts up
against a field, there is a dead end, they put a barricade there.
Borup: So that's what you're talking about?
H.Sharp: And that's at the end of Meadowgrass where it butts up to --
Borup: That's because it doesn't go to another street.
H.Sharp: Yes. It butts up to Wingate Lane, a private lane. Another thing, too, since I've
got the mike, Ada County also says that you cannot have a private lane if you have a
public road at either end. We have Ustick at one end and we have Challis at the other.
If you do, then, it has to become part of the system, brought into the system, and
brought up to code. They also state that you cannot have more than four houses on a
lane 400 feet long. Ours is a half-mile long. If you are on the fifth house you are to
bring it up to standard and make it part of the roadway. The City.of Meridian --
Borup: Well, ma'am, that wasn't the question I brought you up here for.
H.Sharp: But, anyway -- but, no, it's --
Borup: My question is, then, you're not in favor of the gate; is that true?
H.Sharp: No. Because also on our private road agreement that was established in
1913 it says it's to be opened and maintained.
Borup: Okay. You were concerned about traffic down there and you want to prevent
that.
H.Sharp: Well, they said how about posting signs and they just posted a sign that says
maximum speed ten miles, no trespassing, private lane --
Borup: Okay.
H.Sharp: -- and, then, the Idaho Code. So, they are hoping this will stop some of the
traffic, because prosecutors -- or they will be prosecuted is they bypass or use the lane.
The sheriff has said that they will. So, I guess we sit there with cameras and take
pictures of trespassing on our private road.
Borup: So, do you see any possible -- any possibility that you would ever agree to a
gate?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 27 of 72
H.Sharp: They can buy us out.
Borup: All right. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? Mr. Groves, are you
speaking as the final rebuttal or as public testimony?
Groves: No. I'll let our representative Pat Tealey speak final rebuttal. I wanted to -- my
name is Craig Groves, I reside at 3920 East Shady Glen Court in Boise, Idaho. I'm a
managing member for Packard Estates Development, LLC. I wanted to encourage the
Commission here this evening to -- a lot of what -- the discussion you have heard really
doesn't belong in this land use arena here, it belongs in a civil arena, and we had a
meeting two and a half years ago now at ACHD, a work session with owners on
Wingate Lane, with Mr. and Mrs. Sharp, everyone at the meeting agreed to put up a
gate. I agreed to fund it. Okay? I had an agreement drafted, I delivered it to Mr. Chip
Gallagher, nobody on the lane would sign it, the Sharps immediately backed out of the
deal, you know, there is no coming to resolution on this. If you want us to put money
aside for the gate, fine, we will do it, but I really encourage you to put a time line on it.
You know, no more than six months. We have been dealing with this for years. It's not
a land -- it's not part of your land use application, as far as I'm concerned. Secondly,
there is no pleasing Mr. and Mrs. Sharp under any circumstances. We have offered to
deed fee title from Meadowgrass to the Sharp's residence 20 feet. Right now they have
a 15-foot easement. Build them a permanent gate and pave their property from
Meadowgrass to their -- from Meadowgrass to their property. Well over a year and a
half ago. We are now several hundred thousand dollars down .the road and still talking
about the same issues. I would encourage you this evening to look at the merits of the
plan, 20 home sites, nice home sites, 300,000 dollar houses, make your decision, move
it to Council. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Tealey.
Tealey: Originally, addressing the concern of the next-door neighbor there in Packard
Acres No.1, she did buy that house there that -- on a lot and there was a common lot
next to her and it's a numbered lot and it's on the plat. Now, her builder may have tried
to include that in there and landscape and it does appear as though it's part of her
property, there is no doubt about it, but there is a platted common lot there for her -- for
us to use for a path.
Borup: That's what I assumed.
Tealey: Our alternative was -- and in the first plan that we presented to you was to put
the common area adjacent to Wingate Lane so it could be used for a walking path, that
people wouldn't use that 15-foot easement to walk up and down. City Council didn't see
it our way and wanted us to move it over to the west to where we show it now. So, that
we thought we had a solution for that, but that got changed. All of what Craig says is --
you know, I'm there with him. This has all happened - we started this in 1995 and it's
been exactly the same argument since 1995. I was at that meeting at ACHD, we did sit
down with the adjacent landowners to Wingate Lane, we thought we had something
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 28 of 72
worked out, but it was all predicated on everybody signing it and that -- there was not
one signature that came back on that agreement. As a matter of fact, the Sharps went
out the next week or two and filed suit against the developer. This went to court and all
you're hearing from them tonight is a reiteration of what they tried to get in court and in
court they were shut down and told that they didn't have a case. They lost it. And they
agreed -- because we paid their -- the developers paid their lawyer bills, they agreed not
to appeal. What they are trying to do here is come back to you and get what they
couldn't get in court. We are here for -- as Craig said, this is a land use issue, we want
an R-4 zone, which you had already approved before, we are asking for two less lots,
and I guess if Craig's willing to put that escrow out there that's fine, but I don't see a
solution to it and it -- and if you give it too much time for that solution to happen, for
example, one year or two years, it's just going to get put off to the very end anyway. I
would give them a month. You know, make them come together. You know, if that's
what they want and that's what will satisfy them, maybe we will get over this hump. But
I really don't think that's part of -- part of the issue tonight. The issue is the rezone,
annexation, and our preliminary plat on this five-acre parcel. We have faced all this
argument since 1995 and we have gotten over it until tonight and I don't see why we
need to change tonight. The last issue is the chain link fence that we just built recently
along the Sharp's property line. We went to the city and to the Sharps, we asked them
what kind of fence do you want there, they said we want a chain link fence, the city
okayed the use of the chain link fence there and we have got records to that if you want
to see it. We don't really want to build another wood fence adjacent to that chain link.
Borup: Okay. That's what I was --
Tealey: Any questions?
Borup: That was my original understanding.
Commissioners?
Questions from any of the
Zaremba: No. I was going to ask about the fence, but let me just confirm with staff that
the chain link fence does meet the code and in that location that's acceptable?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing AZ 04-005 and PP 04-
006.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close both hearings. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 29 of 72
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Borup: Okay. I don't think we have any discussion on the first issue, but go ahead.
Zaremba: Well, I feel as I did before, this is a project that is similar in nature to the
projects around it, with the exception of the one parcel to the south and the
recommendation for approval of the annexation and zoning that I made earlier on the
last one, I still feel that way on this one. My comment on the preliminary plat, I think the
applicant has addressed the issues that the City Council asked for it to be remanded
back to us. On the specific staff comments, turning to page eight, I would substitute for
paragraph one under site specific conditions of approval, preliminary plat, that there is
an existing chain link fence along the south perimeter and I believe it was a wood fence
along the west perimeter and that those can remain. Under paragraph three, item B, I
would delete the requirement to change Wingate Lane from 15 feet to 20 feet and
substitute for it a requirement that the applicant put into an escrow account a fee
enough to build a gate across Wingate Lane at what would be the north property line of
Packard Estates No.1 and that -- and I would suggest that that escrow account stay
active until either the fence is built or the first certificate of occupancy on this new
application, whichever comes first. That's probably a longer time period than the
developer wants, but --
Newton-Huckabay: The fence that runs north and south?
Zaremba: The gate across Wingate Lane would -- the money for it would stay in escrow
until there is either an agreement made and it's built or until the first certificate of
occupancy. If there has not been agreement of all parties by the time the first certificate
of occupancy on this development, then, the developer gets the money back.
Borup: Do you think that extra time is going to make any difference?
Zaremba: Well, I'm willing to hear other suggestions. That's what I was going to
suggest.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: It's clear that the chairman thinks that one to two months is plenty. I'd like to
hear from Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree with the developer that a shorter time frame than a year or
two years would be acceptable, but I think it is an issue that does need to be resolved
expediently for all parties. I would say six to eight months is a reasonable request.
Zaremba: I could go with that.
Newton-Huckabay: But I would also -- I would not agree, though, to -- I would say that
they would also in that agree where the gate would go, if they agree on a gate.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 30 of 72
Zaremba: Well -- and that's what I'm saying, if agreement hasn't been reached, then,
the developer gets the money back and that's --
Newton-Huckabay: Right. But you were saying put the gate on the north of Packard
No.1. I would not put that as one of the suggested conditions.
Zaremba: In order for the gate to exist it needs to be in the Meridian city limits.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. So it can't be at the north of say Packard No.2?
Zaremba: And I would still like them to have access to their drainage, which is that
upper lot off of Wingate Lane. To me that's the only place that we can put it.
Borup: You're saying right there, Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: Yes. That's where I'm aiming it. I don't see that it can go anywhere else.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, with that point, then, I agree with Commissioner
Zaremba.
Borup: Well, it couldn't go any further north.
Zaremba: It can't go any further north, because it would be a county -- it would be
surrounded by county land and be subject to the county ordinance. I wouldn't put it
much farther south, because that eliminates access to the drainage lot and if you put it
south of Challis, it doesn't serve the purpose of keeping people off of that section.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And, then, do we have to specify that the house has to come
out, the --
Zaremba: No. That's condition number two that already exists.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the city
council --
Holinka: Chairman, Members of the Commission -- I'm sorry, I didn't want to interrupt
you.
Zaremba: Yes. Please. Yes. This is discussion time.
Holinka: I just wanted a clarification on site specific condition number three, sub C, and
I guess maybe this is directed at staff, but it talks about a requirement to forbid gates or
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 31 of 72
removal of permanent fencing. Is the gate specified there, a gate in the fencing or is
that talking about a gate across the lane?
Zaremba: I would think that's a gate from a lot onto the lane.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Zaremba: Not the gate we are talking about, but I can clarify that.
Holinka: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: That was our intention was -- yeah.
Holinka: The other thing I wanted to mention, I did speak with the developer's attorney
late this afternoon about this specific condition. I guess it was probably more directed at
the first part of it, and his recollection with the prior two Packard Acres developments,
about the release and the access issue, was it was more done with the lot or the plat
condition sub A there, in addition to a reference in the CC&Rs that there would be no
access -- direct lot access, rather than as it stated in the first sentence of paragraph -- of
sub three there.
Zaremba: Say that again. A-- that you're talking about, direct access to Wingate Lane
is specifically prohibited and I didn't catch the difference in what you were saying?
Holinka: Well -- and in addition to that, that would be specifically referenced in the
CC&Rs and, I'm sorry, I didn't have an opportunity to check back to see what -- if that
was, in fact, accurate, but that was his recollection from the prior application, so --
Zaremba: Okay. Is a motion in order?
Borup: Yes. I think so.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of AZ 04-005, request for annexation and zoning 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4
zone for Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC, east
of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Ustick Road, to include all staff
comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 16, 2004, received by the
city clerk September 13, 2004, with no changes.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16. 2004
Page 32 of 72
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of PP 04-006 -- and I comment, again, that this is the preliminary plat drawing
dated 7/22/04, stamped received by the city clerk August 13, 2004, request for
preliminary plat approval of 20 single family residential building lots and one common lot
on 5.27 acres in a proposed R-4 subdivision for Packard Estates Subdivision No.3 by
Packard Estates Development, LLC, east of North Locust Grove Road and south of
East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of
September 16, 2004, received by the city clerk September 13, 2004, with the following
changes: On page eight, under site specific conditions of approval preliminary plat,
paragraph one, essentially can be deleted and replaced with a statement that says:
Applicant has provided a chain link fence along their southern border and a wooden
fence along their western border as perimeter fencing and these fencings may remain.
Under paragraph three, subparagraph A --
Borup: That doesn't delete the requirement to have fencing along Wingate?
Zaremba: No. And that's addressed farther down.
Borup: Okay. There we go.
Zaremba: I believe.
Borup: Yes, it is. Number four.
Zaremba: Yeah. Number four. Okay. So, paragraph three, subparagraph A, reads as
it states: Direct lot access to Wingate Lane is specifically prohibited and will add to that
sentence: And this prohibition shall be referenced in the subdivision's CC&Rs.
Paragraph three, subparagraph B, delete the current statement and substitute a
statement that says: Developer shall put adequate money into an escrow account for
the building of a gate across Wingate Lane at the north property line of Packard Acres
Subdivision No.1, such escrow account to remain until such time as the Wingate Lane
homeowners have all agreed to the placement of the gate or until six months has
elapsed, whichever occurs first. If the time elapsed without an agreement on where the
fence should --
Newton-Huckabay: Gate.
Zaremba: -- on the fence being there -- I'm sorry, on the gate being there, the money
shall be returned to the applicant and no further discussion of the gate will ensue. On
paragraph three, subparagraph C, near the bottom, the last paragraph, also provide a
recorded copy of deed restrictions to prohibit access to Wingate Lane and forbid gates,
add the words: From adjoining lots. And, then, the rest of the sentence remains.
Paragraph four is already satisfactory as is. No further changes.
Newton-Huckabay: I would second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 16, 2004
Page 33 of 72
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: PFP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
for 4 building lots on 1.6 acres in a R-4 zone for Woodward Estates
Subdivision by Eagleson Place, LLC - southwest corner of South
Crestwood Drive and West 12th Street:
Borup: Thank you. That concludes that application. Do we want to continue on,
Commissioners, or -- well, no, let's do Item No. 12 at least. We have a request on Item
No. 12 -- let me remember again -- did they just withdraw or they asked for --
Zaremba: I think it was a request to continue, unfortunately, due to the untimely death
of the developer. The difficulty is they don't necessarily specify a time and we can only
continue to a specific time.
Borup: Well -- but they are talking about a re-notice. Maybe some staff clarification.
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, clarification on the next item?
Borup: Yes. Yeah. The letter says they are asking for a re-notice, but are they
withdrawing -- I mean it sounds like they are also changing the plat also.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. They would -- at this point they are not withdrawing the
application entirely, but conversations with staff have been that they are intending to
continue it on, just that due to an untimely death they had to make some different
coordination's between the applicant and the developer and et cetera. So, we have not
received the new application, which the Planning and Zoning Commission asked for
them to add that new property where the tennis courts are -- you remember they had
that tennis court and you asked them to go back and add that property and they haven't
come back to us with that and once they do, then, we are going to have to send the
notice around again to everybody within 300 feet.
Newton-Huckabay: So, we are talking at least 30 days.
Zaremba: At least a month, maybe --
Newton-Huckabay: If not a month and a half.
Hawkins-Clark: Probably more like two I would say.
Newton-Huckabay: Sixty days?
Zaremba: Okay. So--