Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 6, 2005 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 69 of 85 Rohm: That's why I was asking if we -- we wouldn't continue something that's not going to continue. Hood: Correct. _ Rohm: Just close those out and, then, the package would be re-noticed and re -- issued-_new numbers far the December 1st meeting. Hood: But just for the arirre~cation and zoning. The preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit can be continued to the 1 st and the other one you can -- I don't know -- what should we do with the other one? I'm not even -- _. _____ - --Rohm: That's why I was asking the question. Zaremba: Mr. Baird, do you have a -- Newton-Huckabay: Deny it. Zaremba: We could ask the applicant to withdraw it. Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think in order to give staff the maximum flexibility if we continue it, then, they can -- at an administrative level they can either withdraw it, amend it, supplement it -- does that make sense to you over there? I'm getting nods. So, basically, if our action is to continue it, they can make the appropriate changes and bring it back at that date certain. Zaremba: So, continue all three as is. Yeah. As it. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue AZ 05-042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of December 1st, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 05-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 60 single-family residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 23.9 acres in a R-4 zone for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 14 by Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission pctober 6, 2005 Page 70 of 85 Primeland Development, LLP -north of West Ustick Road and west of North Linder Road: Zaremba: Okay. I will now open the public hearings for PP 05-044. This relates to Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 14 by Primeland Development and we will begin with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. Just getting the slide set up here. This application is a new preliminary plat within Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision and what's shown on the screen right now is the original preliminary plat, just so you can get a feel for the area. This is the main residential collector road coming in ofF of Ustick out the south end heading north. So, this is on the east side of the residential collector, what would be phase 14 of their project. The street system that was approved, you can see, is just a loop here. It does have a stub to Watersong Estates Subdivision. That local road system is not proposed to change. Here is the plat that they are proposing. So, you can see the small cul-de-sac on the end, which is also the same, as well as the stub street. The reason that they are submitting this as a new preliminary plat is because the total number of lots within this has increased by 11 from what they originally had. If you add up the entire Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision, they are still, I believe, nine lots below what they were originally approved for. So, as they have built the subdivision out, you know, as the market and whatnot has changed and the open space lots are needed for drainage, et cetera, they have adjusted lots and so in a sense they are kind of making up with this phase some of the lots that they had lost in other phases. So, because of the increase in the number of lots they were asked by staff to file a brand new preliminary plat. Of course, the property is already annexed and zoned. The Conditional Use Permit does not change, so those two existing applications remain in effect and underly this conditional use -- or this preliminary plat. So, we are just dealing with the one application tonight. The Coleman Lateral does run across the southern boundary of this phase. The only point I think of consideration in the staff report that's worthy of noting is on page five -- the bottom of page five and the top of page six regarding open space and the main open space in this phase is here ofF of the residential collector. There is a very interesting archeological site here in that there is a small cemetery, which we don't see too often, that is in this location, which during the original preliminary plat of this area when the developer brought this through, we had asked, of course, that they sort of set that into it's own common lot with some landscaping around it. They are showing it here preserved. They have -- because of groundwater issues, as was earlier discussed tonight in this area, they have shown all sand -- I'm sorry, I guess that's the only one we have. Mostly a sand bottom around the cemetery and that's actually part of an agreement that the city made with the developer a couple of years ago, because of all of the dead sod that was happening with all the ground -- the high groundwater and the dying, so they are required to keep that free of weeds and raked and kept very neat. The applicant told me tonight they actually may not need that, because of the change in the agricultural use. As they monitor out there, if the groundwater changes, maybe get some vegetative groundcover, which I think would be everyone's preference. They have shown sand there now and since that is part of an existing agreement, even though that's not our preference, I think because of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 71 of S5 what they are having to deal with on the ground, that's what is currently shown. So, just you know, if you recommend approval of this, it is going with that sand area in that cemetery site. All that to say because it is shown in sand in Josh's staff report, which, by the way, I am substituting for Josh on this application, he felt that that should not qualify as open space and that the applicant should provide some either active or passive open space elsewhere. Today we asked the applicant to calculate the square footage of the parkway. They are proposing an eight foot wide parkway, detached sidewalk, around this looped road, so the way that the Unified Development Cade is written, if they do provide the eight feet and they subtract out the driveway curb cuts across that, which we have said should be 26 feet, and they subtract that out, then, they can actually count that as open space and it sounds like they are around an acre, if you add up all of that open space. So, it would actually offset by more than what's necessary. So, I think Josh did not have that information when he wrote the staff report, so that affects the -- the one site-specific condition that is really of any substance in the report. Moe: 1.22? Hawkins~Clark: Sorry? Moe: Is that 1.22? Hawkins-Clark: 1.12, which states the applicant shall provide additional usable open space, common lots. So, if the Commission is comfortable counting the parkway as that, which the UDC supports, then, that could be stricken. So, that's all staff has on this application. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Borup: Maybe one along that same -- I never felt too strongly about counting those parkways that it really means a lot as far as open space, but the question Ihave -- and I realize this is -- we need to look at this, I assume on its own, but what's the open space for the entire project? Maybe we can get that from the application when they come up, but -- Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I would have to defer to the applicant. Borup: Okay. But I -- if that's -- by the time this thing is averaged in on the entire project, if it doesn't really have any effect -- I think it makes sense, then. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, the -- I think it's just -- up until a couple weeks ago Ithink -- maybe the new director has -- ar not the new director, the director has changed and set a new policy there, but previously we had said that if it's a new preliminary plat, it's a new application, and it should be reviewed as a stand-alone application and that's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Oc#ober 6, 2005 Page 72 of 85 Borup: But it was part of an original -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. And their response -- the written response does state that 56 acres of open space, plus the 13-acre elementary school site, within the entire Bridgetower site. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: I can't tell you what the percentage is. Borup: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: I would only comment on the session that happened during the Process Improvement Group meetings that was helping to develop the new Unified Development Code, in regard to counting the space between a roadway and the sidewalk as open space, was to help developers be encouraged to use the detached sidewalk as being much more pedestrian friendly. It was kind of a -- really, an incentive -- intended as an incentive to encourage them to do detached sidewalks and -- Borup: Well, I think the esthetics are worth it, but that's more what it is, the esthetics. Zaremba: Yeah. Sa, that was the thinking about why it's given -- allowed to be in the open space calculation. Okay. If there are no further comments, the applicant, please. McKay: I will be really quick on this one. I promise. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. As Brad indicated, we are coming back to you for a new preliminary plat on one particular pod within the Bridgetower project. The pad you're looking at is -- the area we are asking for a replat is this area right here. And this is phase 14, which is our last phase to be designed. So, all the collectors are in, the landscaping here along the collectors is in, with the exception of the cemetery. And, no, that's not my amenity. It was an old cemetery from like the 1800s. There is, believe, six graves still left there. There is just a small area with a little wrought iron fence. We promised the City Council that we would tastefully buffer that, landscape it, and maintain that area. So, even though the little fence area is just a tiny spat in the middle of that, we did allow for quite a bit of area around it. Since we did this also, we came up with the swale concept, so we are not putting the storm drainage around this exterior like we had planned. There will be some that already goes there via the collector that was pre-planned. We want -- when Brad talked about a sand bottom, it's just the very very bottom and the staff goes out and they work with the landscape architect to make sure that that sand is kind of contoured and that landscaping is put like they put some shrubs and rocks as kind of a vision to draw your attention to the sides versus the bottom of the sand and you really -- when you go down the collector don't really even notice the sand. When it gets the sediment on it, the silt from the road, they go and they rake it and it looks just as good as new. Like I said, we tried the cobblestone and that just did not work. So we have learned a lot. Open space. I think in my comments to you guys we had 56 acres of open space in the original Bridgetower Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission actober 6, 2005 Page 73 of 85 project. We dropped a considerable amount of lots as time went an to enlarge lots and to increase our storm drainage retention areas. So, we have slot -- at the time I think we had about 15 percent open space in the project in its entirety and, then, we added more open space and we did not count the elementary school site as part of the 56. It was independent of that. We have two pool houses -- two pools, two clubhouses. The second pool and second clubhouse are under construction. We have multi-use pathways, waterfalls, ponds, seven-acre park, lots of pathways and so forth. So, we have already put in all of the amenities. This is just one little pod that we are re-platting and the reason being -- when we originally laid this out, these were same of our larger lots. We had phase 13, 6, 14 were the bigger lots. These lots are 145 by like 84 and 90 feet wide. The first design was identical to this in the roadway network. The lots were just like 15,000, 14,000 square feet, all the way up to -- I think we had some that went as high as 20. In adding these 11 lots, these are still 13,000, 12,000, 18, 16,000. These are 13 and 11 thousand through here. So, they are still huge. They are 140 deep, 159 deep. We try to keep everything around the $Os wide. I don't think we had anything less than about an 80. Sa, they are still very large lots. And the reason we decided to do this is the escalation in the lot prices. My client said as large as these lots are on paper, I'm going to have to ask, in order to make this work, a couple hundred thousand dollars per each lot and, you know, I don't want to go there and so he felt from a marketing perspective, by reducing these lots by a couple thousand -- two or three thousand square feet, they are still real large compared to, you know, north Meridian standards, it made for a better project. And we are still under the number of lots that were approved under the original PUD by nine, as staff said. So, if you look at my comments, I just ask that you accept the fact that the amenities were provided in the original Bridgetower, that we allow for same sand in the bottom, as we have agreed to with staff, Public Works, ACRD, and, then, that no red curb did show up on this one that is solely a residential subdivision. It says locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red ten feet to each side of hydrant location. So -- now, I saw this pop up once before on an application. The Council did ask Kenny Bowers, who was the fire chief at the time, if that was an error, and he said that he did not believe it was applicable to residential. So, they took -- the Council took it off on my last application where it's -- I don't know why it's resurfacing again. We do reflectors in front of those hydrants. That's a Public Works requirement, so that they can be easily seen in the dark. But the red we don't do, not in residential. Now, my client said he saw one residential subdivision where I guess they did not object and just did it and he said it looked awful. So, there is one in Meridian that has it. Other than that, I think the staff and ourselves were pretty much in agreement. And, then, we ask that the fencing far this one be able to match everything else. I don't want to deviate from the -- what we have already got out there, because this is, like I said, my last phase to be designed. Da you have any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Rohm: No questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 74 of 85 Borup: Just a comment. You seemed concerned about the open space, but I think Brad had mentioned that counting -- the drainage area should comply, so that -- McKay: You mean the green space, the eight foot green space? Borup: Right. Right. McKay: Yeah. It's 1.04. Borup: So, you're okay without worrying about -- McKay: Okay. Borup: -- counting everything else, it looks like. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: There is no one signed up to speak, although, again, the opporkunity is available if somebody feels compelled. Okay. I see no action from the audience, so, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I think the request on the fence is reasonable, so the subdivision looks like the rest of it. Other than that, I have no concerns. Zaremba; We would be happy to have you make a motion. Commissioner Newton- Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm was making notes to make a motion. Zaremba: Well, the first one is easy. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-044. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would ask -- Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 75 of 85 Moe: I would ask staff in regards to that applicant's comments, what does staff -- are we in agreement to delete some of these or what are we doing with these? Cole: Commissioner Moe, I can't speak for planning on theirs. The only concern the applicant had on Public Works comments was on 2.5, about vacating a lateral fvr the easement. She thinks it's a proscriptive easement, so I believe if we just add the word vacating a recorded irrigation easement would -- we could get an agreement with that, much as the last -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, as far as the planning comments on this project, 1.2.2 references the need to reserve the use of sand for the ponds and given that they do have a signed agreement with the city, we accept that point. Again, I think it's -- for consistency sake on the fire department, I think you noted in your last decision the residential and the red curbs, so it would seem appropriate to grant that same privilege on this project. And we would agree, I think there is a difference on the Volterra Subdivision being a new project entirely on the fencing, as compared to this one where they are finishing up a 14-phase project. So, we are in agreement there. The 4.2 on the police -- the condition actually reads: The proposed development does not offer natural surveillance opportunities at the public areas and that they should revise the landscape plan in accordance with discussions that would occur with the police department. I gather from the applicant's testimony they didn't actually -- she didn't contact the police department, which probably have been done, since that's what the condition asked to do, but, you know, Imean -- Borup: What public areas -- Hawkins-Clark: -- given that the open area is already exposed -- yeah, I -- I can only guess that maybe he's talking about the micro-paths on that. But, you know, that would be my only guess. But that micro-path is straight alignment, which is something that we -- we want them to be straight, not crooked, and it complies with that. And that other open space area is substantially open to Belltower Lane, the collector. So, I'd be comfortable with you I guess, essentially, adopting all the changes that are proposed in the applicant's letter. Rather than going through them individually, since we are in agreement with all of them, with the exception of Mike Cole's statement about 2.5, just kind of -- rather than deleting that, just changing the wording, ~I think, we are good with that change. Borup: So, is that the consensus of the Commission, everything but 2.5 would be incorporated? Moe: I agree. Zaremba: Works forme. Newton-Huckabay: Are you going to do this or do you want me to? I'm ready I guess now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 76 of 85 Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I move we recommend approval to the City Council -- Borup: Did we close the hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Of PP 05-044 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6, 2005, and the preliminary plat dated August 10th, 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: We will incorporate the letter from the applicant, with agreement of all statements, with the exception of the statement referring to Item No. 2.5 from the Public Works and we will change the wards from vacate the existing to vacate recorded, Coleman Lateral easement. Oh. And applicant's letter was received on October 6th, 2005. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any apposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 19: Public Nearing: MCU 05-002 Request for modification of approved CUP 03-067 to allow for the operation of a 2,200 square foot convenience stare and to eliminate the coffee stand for Cedar Springs Professional Center by Robert Montgomery -northeast corner of Venable Lane and Ustick Road: Zaremba: Thank you all, We are now ready to open the Public Hearing for MCU 05- 002, regarding Cedar Springs Professional Center and, once again, we will begin with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission. This is, I believe, the first Conditional Use Permit application that this Commission has reviewed under the new UDC and under the new UDC you have final authority on these applications. Sa, your decision tonight would be final, unless appealed by an affected property owner or someone else. So, in that case, the motion does need to be a little different in that you need to request that the staff prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that reflect your decision tonight and, then, we would bring those Findings back to you for your review and, then, eventual adoption. This application is a modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit. The development agreement that was entered into on this property a couple of years ago was also proposed to be modified a couple of months ago. This body, of course, does not see modifications to development agreements, since those are contracts, they go directly to the City Council. City Council did hear that modification to the development agreement, which has the exact same proposed changes that you're reviewing tonight, the City Council reviewed under the