Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-26 Abigail Germaine ATTORNEYS AT LAW Abigail R. Germaine 251 E. Front St., Ste. 300, Boise, ID 83702 T: (208) 343-5454 1 E: arg@elamburke.com www.elamburke.com January 26, 2026 Via Email: comment@meridiancity.org sallen@meridiancity.org kstarman@meridiancity.org Hard copy provided to: City of Meridian Mayor and Members of the City Council 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Formal Comments Regarding Cherry Blossom East Subdivision— H-2025-0030—Preliminary and Final Plat Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We represent Marjorie and Justin Williams (the "Williams") who are adjacent property owners to the proposed development. We respectfully submit the following comments regarding the proposed Cherry Blossom East Subdivision ("Subdivision") which is requesting concurrent approval of a preliminary and final plat ("Application'). We would ask that the City Council continue a decision on this Application until information can be provided that shows the Application has met the applicable legal requirements. The Subdivision,proposed by Doug Jayo(owner)and Gregg Davis(Breckon Land Design) (collectively, "Applicant")consists of three(3)building lots and one(1)common lot taking access off of N.W. 4t'Street via a common driveway across an abutting property, outside of the proposed Subdivision. This development will have impacts related to traffic, city services, and property owner access. Overall, the Williams understand that the applicant has a right to develop his property, however, how the Subdivision is developed is important to the livelihood of those adjacent to it. The Williams recognize the City's desire to encourage compatible, well-designed development within the City. We oppose this Subdivision proposal in its current form based on City of Meridian—Mayor and City Council January 26,2026 Page 2 the access that is being planned. It raises significant concerns related to traffic impacts, public services, and trespass. The Williams believe it is essential to require additional information to determine if the Application should be improved, and ultimately, if approved, include certain conditions of approval that will ensure the impacts of the Subdivision are reduced to the extent possible. Without more information and necessary conditions of approval, the Williams and other adjacent property owners will be substantially impacted due to the access and trespass that will occur. At this time, the Applicant has failed to meet the criteria of Merdian City Code (Unified Development Code/UDC). This includes compliance with UDC 11-3A-3, 11-6C-3D, and 11-3H- 4 related to adequate access for the Subdivision. As will be discussed further below,the Applicant has failed to meet the standards of a private driveway,and therefore the project is certain to infringe and trespass onto the Williams' and other adjacent property owner's property. For these reasons, and others, we respectfully request that the City Council continue this Application until the required access has been obtained, and the Applicant can meet the access standards required by the UDC. Below is a non-exhaustive list of issues and concerns the Williams would ask the City Council to consider in evaluating this Application. I. Access and Trespass. The Subdivision is proposing access via an Access Easement Agreement ("Easement") which presumably provides a 20-foot wide easement from N.W. 4th street to the Subdivision property. The first issue with taking access via this Easement is the validity of the Easement itself. This issue has been identified by several individuals involved in this project (staff, developer, deputy city attorney, neighbors, etc.). Of relevance, the easement was granted by Ms. Carolee Fusselman, who was the then owner of the property east of the proposed Subdivision and immediately west of N.W. 4th Street. The Easement describes the benefitted property as "lots 16, 17, and 19 of the Cherry Blossom Subdivision."However,these lots do not exist. This description calls into question the intent of the grantor (Ms. Fusselman) in providing this easement and the validity of the description of the easement area. We believe it is unclear if this easement provides legal access from NW. 0' to the Subdivision. Furthermore, and of serious concern, is the Applicant's (grantee's) attempt to "re-execute" the easement to correct this inadequacy by unilaterally executing a Correction to Access Easement Agreement. This Correction to Access Easement Agreement is only signed by the grantee (Jayo/Applicant) and is not signed by the grantor(Ms. Fusselman). Therefore, this Correction to Access Easement Agreement has no force and effect and was a misguided attempt by the Applicant to correct the insufficiency of the Easement. In addition, there is not an easement providing utility access to the subdivision. As confirmed by City staff, an easement must be obtained and provided for water service. City staff has confirmed that an easement for service does not exist to this property and is required. City of Meridian—Mayor and City Council January 26,2026 Page 3 Next, the width of the Easement is insufficient to provide the necessary access to the Subdivision.UDC 11-6C-3D(2)requires that"[c]ommon driveways shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width, unless greater width is required by the City Engineer. All common driveways shall be on a common lot." As noted by staff, the driveway will be less than twenty feet (20') in certain areas, which is in direct violation of UDC 11-6C-3D(2). The Williams (and other adjacent property owners)take access to their property from N.W. 41h via a private driveway. The Applicant has no right to use their private driveway. Because the width of the Applicant's proposed driveway does not meet the minimum standard of twenty feet(20'),the result will be that vehicles,especially emergency services vehicles (fire trucks), delivery trucks, and services trucks (solid waste, etc.) will be forced to trespass on the Williams' private driveway. In addition, it does not appear that the applicant intends to dedicate the driveway on a common lot which violates UDC 11-6C-3D(2). Furthermore, UDC 11-6C-3D(3) states, "[c]ommon driveways shall be a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) feet in length or less, unless otherwise approved by the Meridian City Fire Department." The driveway as planned exceeds this length at three hundred seventy feet (370), adding to the nonconformance of this proposed driveway related to the safety standards of the UDC. Pursuant to UDC 11-6C-3D(7) "[f]or any plats using a common driveway, the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, landscaping and orientation of the lots and structures shall be shown on the preliminary plat and/or as an exhibit with the final plat application." This information has not been provided in detail. The plat cannot be approved without providing these measurements to ensure the code is being complied with. Although the Director may recommend approval of an exemption or alternative to the driveway standards, this alternative (reduction in 20') may only be granted when the "applicant can demonstrate the overall design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards of this section and shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare."UDC 11-6C-3D(9) (emphasis added). The exception to the reduction in width is not appropriate here, where such reduction will result in the trespass onto adjacent property owner's private driveways and safety concerns for vehicular movement on the driveway. Furthermore, the Easement is required to be paved with a surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. However, Ms. Fusselman has not provided consent to pave this Easement. If consent is not obtained,the applicant cannot meet the requirement to pave this access to Fire Department standards as required. For all these reasons, the Subdivision does not have adequate legal access and at this time cannot be approved. II. Other Concerns and Considerations. • Necessary Revisions to Plat Notes: Several revisions to the plat are necessary and should be required before the final plat is approved: • The final plat depicts a street name for the proposed common driveway. A common driveway cannot be named. In addition, naming the private City of Meridian—Mayor and City Council January 26,2026 Page 4 driveway would require permission from the Easement grantor if the portion of the driveway named was to include the Easement area. Furthermore, naming of the driveway would require it to be considered a private street and a private street application has not been included with this Application. • A private driveway maintenance agreement should be required before approving the final plat. The Applicant has stated that the driveway will be maintained by the three lots. It is essential that a driveway maintenance agreement be in place before the final plat to ensure the private driveway is properly maintained and does not lead to depreciation of the infrastructure and negative repercussions. • Maintenance Agreement and CC&Rs: It appears that the Applicant is no longer proposing that these units be incorporated into the Cherry Blossom Place HOA. If that is the case,the Applicant should provide draft CC&Rs for the new HOA. It is important that surrounding neighbors are assured that certain standards and requirements will be met related to property and driveway maintenance. • Irrigation Issues: There are significant unresolved issues related to the irrigation system shared with the Cherry Blossom Place subdivision. These matters must be resolved before a final plat is approved, not as a condition of approval. • Drainage: Similarly, the Applicant has not shown that the drainage from the Subdivision will be retained onsite. The Applicant must demonstrate how drainage will be handled so as to eliminate it encroaching onto the adjacent private driveway. These drainage plans must be reviewed and approved prior to final plat. It is important that this evaluation occur before final plat to ensure that should revisions be necessary,they are incorporated into the plat. The Williams respectfully request that the City Council deny the Application until information can be provided which addresses the insufficiencies of legal access to the Subdivision as well as formalizing other necessary requirements under the UDC. Such requirements are vital to protect the surrounding neighborhoods and the future members of this community. We appreciate the City Council's attention to this matter and to ensuring that future development aligns with the City's policies on access, safety, and reducing impacts to adjacent property owners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ELAM & BURKE Attorneys at Law Abigail R. Germaine ARG/mse