Email from Jeff & Lisa Jewison 4-24-05
Page 1 of 1
Aanenson, Kate
From: jljewison [jljewison@mchsLcom]
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:53 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Aanenson, Kate
Subject: Hidden Creek Meadows proposed development
Believe it is important to bring a more recent issue with the Hidden Creek Meadows proposed development to the
Council's attention. The current proposal was developed with a cul-de-sac to the west of our property to avoid
connecting the proposed Pipewood Lane to the Meadow Court cul-de-sac via the north side of our property. After
further research, we have found that an easement for a road does not exist to allow this connection. According to
our abstract and the Meadow Court plat registered with the county, there is only a 50 ft drainage and utility
easement. We discussed this issue with Engineer Matt Saam on Monday, March 28, in my attempt to clarify how
a connecting road would even be possible. After he reviewed the Meadow Court plat, he also agreed that an
easement for a road does not exist and stated that it must have been overlooked in the proposal.
Based on this new information, we would like to restate the issues that we have raised multiple times before with
this development. Minor changes have been made to the proposed development by the Planning Commission
and Staff but we don't feel that our concerns have been fully addressed since the City Code has not been
followed.
1. Our property does not have a road easement on the north side so it cannot be considered a corner lot. Also,
our property does not touch Cartway Lane, which could constitute an existing double frontage. The proposed
development creates a double frontage situation that is not allowed under Section 18-60g of the City Code since
neither the proposed Pipewood Lane, nor the existing Meadow Lane, the road exiting our development, are
arterial or collector streets. As defined in the Code, double frontage lots are only permitted where the lots are on
an arterial or collector street. Neither street meets the definition of arterial or collector streets under the Code. A
variance is necessary for the double frontage in this proposal and that has not yet been requested for this
development.
2. Staff has recommended that 10 feet be allowed between our property and the proposed cul-de-sac right-of-way
to accommodate vegetative screening. While we appreciate this recommendation, this still does not comply with
City Code, and as a result, does not resolve the double frontage issue that exists with this proposal. In the
recently approved Yo berry development, lots with double frontage were provided with an additional 13 feet
between the property line and the street right-of-way and also given 130 feet from the back of the houses to the
street right-of-way. If the proposed development will be approved despite the City Code infractions, the Council
should add a provision for an additional distance of at least 130 feet from the back of our house to the cul-de-sac
right-of-way as provided in the Yoberry development.
To resolve the double frontage issue, our solution is that Lot 11 in the proposed development be removed, the
cul-de-sac be moved further west and Lot 12 be extended to the northern boundary. This would eliminate the
variance for the flag lot and remove the need for a variance for the double frontage. Yes, this recommendation
would reduce the number of proposed homes by one and extend the size of Lot 12, but it would be compliant with
City Code and is respectful of our rights and privacy as existing home owners.
We hope that the Council will seriously consider and will address these issues at the April 25th City Council
meeting.
Jeff and Lisa Jewison
3842 Meadow Court
4/2512005