Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSept 19, 2002 Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 85 of 96 Zaremba: Close the Public Hearing? I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 11. Mathes: Second. Borup: Do we need some discussion or do you want to make a motion? Zaremba: I made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Borup: I'm sorry. All in favor? Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do you have a motion, Leslie? Zaremba: I have some discussion. Borup: Okay. Let's go through discussion. Zaremba: I agree that the City Council is the final arbiter and I'm ready to pass this onto them. However, I am of the strong opinion that commercial properties are important to Meridian. This is not a small piece of commercial property, a fairly large piece. Within a reasonable amount of time we would be able to provide the services that they require. The City Council certainly can make their decision, but independent of staff, I feel the same way that staff does, as a result of their thinking, my thinking came out to the same result, even though recently we gave up a small piece of residential property, I don't see giving up a large piece of commercial property and with that discussion, if there is no further discussion, I would make a motion. Mathes: Okay. I would make a motion to deny MI 02-005, request for change of area of impact by Mike Caven, Caven, Incorporated, for 36.94 acres located at the northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick, including all staff comments, dated September 12th. Zaremba: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Tabled Public Hearing from September 5, 2002: AZ 02-016 Request for annexation and zoning of 42.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development - east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 86 of 96 Item 13: Tabled Public Hearing from September 5,2002: PP 02-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 144 building lots and 5 other lots on 42.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development: east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road: Borup: Becky, by making that one short, we have time to start the next one before our cutoff time, so aren't you glad we didn't spend more time on that? Item No. 12 and 13 are both tabled public hearings from September 5th, AZ 02-016, request for annexation and zoning of 42.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development and PP 02-010, request for preliminary plat approval of 144 building lots on the same parcel. I'd like to open both public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, unless you would like to hear more, since you have already received the detailed staff report in a previous meeting, I will mainly just defer to the applicant to address anything they would like to highlight. We have received a revised plat that's stamped September 10th, 2002. That revised plat does address some of the issues that were brought up by staff previously. Borup: The previous issues were -- I mean it was tabled, but we decided to go ahead and discuss it a little bit to try to get a little bit of a jump on tonight. So it may be appropriate if you want to address things that it does not look like we covered in the revised plat. I don't know if there is any other -- are there any other concerns that you still have from the previous staff report? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, no, I think the -- one of the concerns was the design of the open space area and the plat, again, that's on the screen is not the correct one, but we are talking about this open space lot right here. They have revised that to offer much more visibility, visual corridors into this area. I think these were only 40 foot wide frontages and they are in excess of 90 now. So they have more than doubled the common lots frontage right there. I think the main other issue was the stub street access to this south and I guess unlike Bridgetower Crossing, I'm actually in agreement with Becky's comment in her September 19th report, which I don't know if you received it, that was just today. Maybe she's going to hand those out. That's right. But they have -- she has replied in writing and has -- is in agreement with all staff recommended conditions. That block length is -- the parcel that that serves is pretty small and I think if you were to extend a third stub, the design would be fairly awkward to that parcel to the south. Borup: I agree and I have a little bit of a problem with the definition of block length on some designs, like a cul-d-sac. It doesn't really seem to fit the intention of a block length in my mind. I mean the street certainly is that long, but -- isn't that what you're talking about that the cul-d-sac -- the tip to the south there is what you're referring to? Hawkins-Clark: No, Chairman Borup, actually, it would be this boundary here. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 87 of 96 Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: And breaking up -- breaking up this southern boundary that continues all the way over. This is the Heritage Commons Subdivision here and they are utilizing that stub street that Heritage provided here on their east boundary. Go back to the -- here is the parcel that we are talking about in terms of breaking up the block and this parcel has a -- the flap is 100 feet wide coming from Ustick and then it comes up to an area that I think is approximately eight acres, not including this flag, so it begs the question how would one design this 100 foot wide flag. Is it ever going to be used. This Sundance Place Subdivision does provide a stub street here, so there is interconnectivity there. Heritage provides one to the east. I think the distance of this future block here is less than 1,000 feet. Again, as we talked about on the previous item tonight, the ped paths do come in as an option and certainly some -- some kind of connection between the Sundance Place Subdivision and this future piece here is warranted. So I think we would probably recommend the pedestrian pathway. And let me go back. It could be -- it could be extended adjacent to one of these two lot lines at the end of the cul-d-sac. That cul-d-sac is named Tipton Place. It's a 12,013 square foot lot, this Lot 35, at the end of the cul-d-sac, so I think there is -- I lost my pointer here. Here it is. This is Lot 35 right here. So that -- the size -- the square footage of that lot would certainly allow for some -- you know, a ten foot wide -- or, I'm sorry, 20 foot wide path and still meet the square footage, so -- Borup: How about frontage? Can't meet -- even shifting those -- Hawkins-Clark: It has 45 feet of frontage on the cul-d-sac as designed. Borup: You need 40. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It needs 30 if it's a flag lot. The one now adjacent has 45. I think that there would be adequate flexibility there to get it in. Zaremba: Would it be a reasonable alternative to think about making a walkway there? It looks to me like this lot is a large lot and it could be made slightly smaller by shifting this and putting the pathway here. Borup: It's not a large lot for a corner lot. Right now, the way the interpretation of the ordinance is, if that lot goes any smaller the house has to face east, which makes no sense at all. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We also have 68 foot lot frontages along this south boundary and it is 65 minimum, so they are only three feet in excess of the minimum frontage, so -- Borup: Well, let's hear what the applicant has to add to that. Anything -- any other concerns? Meridian PlannIng & Zoning September 1 g, 2002 Page 88 of 96 Hawkins-Clark: No. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 Val i-Hi, Eagle, representing the applicant in this matter. This is the preliminary plat that shows the shifting of the open space further north, therefore, improving the visibility to the open space and making it more usable and just more neighborhood oriented. The applicant is in agreement with staff on all issues. The Blaise property, as I indicated in my argument, you have got a stub street coming from Sundance Subdivision 0 n its western boundary a nd a stub street from t he east from Heritage Commons. On these smaller parcels, if we have more than two stub streets, it's really going to hamper your ability to design that if this were to ever be developed, because that sets how you lay those streets out and those lots and I have seen situations with in-fill parcels where it's almost impossible to develop them due to so many stub streets intersecting at the wrong places. So your only option would be like some type of a pedestrian path. If that's the wish of the Commission, I guess given the flexibility to see if it would fit in here or would better fit in this area, they can do -- they do have some latitude to do a little bit of shifting. So just provide them the flexibility if we deem the ped path is appropriate. Thank you. Do you have any other questions? I'm trying to keep it short. Zaremba: I agreed with the staff comment that the open area, which was originally here, needed to be moved a little farther. I was kind of hoping to see it -- take this area and shift all those houses down and that would be very prominent and very usable to be at the end of that block. Is that a possibility? Bowcutt: I see what you're getting at and -- Borup: You don't have access to the lots that would be in that area then, other than what's there now. Zaremba: Well, the difficulty with not being very open, the difficulty would be the lots -- Bowcutt: The location of your open space is dictated by the topography of the property. Zaremba: Okay. It's the low point? Bowcutt: Yes. So they try to -- we try to have a dual purpose, making it usable, but yet, you know, be effective for storm drainage purposes. If you move it up there I think you're at the high point. Zaremba: I can accept that. Borup: Any -- so the main thing we need discussion on is -- Zaremba: Just had one other question and I don't know whether this is for staff, but it's probably pertinent to the applicant, Becky. Is this usable as an emergency access? Again, I'll tell you where I'm at. My concern is your phasing. If this area starts to get Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19,2002 Page 89 of 96 developed before either this stub street or that stub street goes anywhere, you have a lot of potential houses with only one way in or out, something we have talked about before. Bowcutt: Yes, sir. The White Drain trunk traverses through -- is going to be constructed through that, so there will have to be a minimum of 14 feet, Bruce? Borup: Your plat shows 20. Bowcutt: Well, 14 feet of hard surface for maintenance of that sewer trunk. They would have to expand that for fire department purposes another six feet. Zaremba: Could you do that? Bowcutt: They would have to add a little area, because your staff doesn't like it just to be solid pavement, so they would have to add ten feet. Borup: Does staff have any interest in that happening? I could even see it being temporary, because it makes a -- there will be other access in -- Borup: Well, to the south is developing first before this? Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Borup: So there will be access at this point here. Zaremba: Well, not for people. Borup: Oh, you're saying to only one there. Zaremba: You're right. Yes. Borup: Well, there might be a point there until Heritage is -- gets out that far. Bowcutt: That would be one of the latter phases of Heritage. Their first phase is -- I think they are starting at Locust Grove; right? Borup: Yes. Right. Zaremba: Even if it were temporary, I'm uncomfortable with that many lots being able to be developed with only one access. Bowcutt: They would have to shift around about ten feet to make it so that your staff would accept that. Can't we get away with five feet of landscaping on each side of a hard surface pathway? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 90 of 96 Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Or can there be a temporary? Hawkins-Clark: It could be -- grass creet could be installed, potentially, to -- on the sides, you know, as a temporary measure so you -- Bowcutt: That's true. Hawkins-Clark: -- would essentially have your -- Borup: That's what I was wondering. It would have to be a temporary easement through there and then vacate it when the -- Bowcutt: That's an excellent idea. You could have just minimal pavement for the pathway and then some type of base and grass creet on either side of that to give you the width that you need, but still have some turf in it. Hawkins-Clark: That would be 14 foot solid surface with three foot grass creet on either side. That would give you 20. Borup: Is that something that -- Zaremba: Is that doable? Bowcutt: I think it's doable. It's viable. Hawkins-Clark: You could add the clause in your grass creet or, yes, an approved equivalent design that meets fire department standards. Borup: We are also assuming that there will be no access to Heritage Commons yet. If that access is in there, then it's a mute point, isn't it? Bowcutt: Correct. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Are there -- one of the requirements from previously was to submit a phase plan ten days before this hearing. Could you show the phase lines? Bowcutt: My understanding the phase would just be logistically taking in that first loop, second loop, third loop. I mean that's my understanding. That's really the only way you could phase that logistically. But I will, prior to Council meeting, Brad, make sure that there is some -- that is added. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Borup: Do we have a time frame even on this? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 91 of 96 Bowcutt: For? Borup: Development. Bowcutt: It's a continuation of the Sundance Place Subdivision. Borup: Right. Which is just .- Bowcutt: It's pretty much the same type of product, so I believe if you put the two together you're probably looking at four, five years, maybe less, depending on market conditions. Borup: Right. That's kind of what I assumed, too. Bowcutt: But, yes, they are concentrating on the Sundance Development at this time. Borup: Why are they applying for that so soon? Bowcutt: I believe because the White Drain was being constructed through there, they, obviously, wanted to get their site plan established. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Doesn't it have to be .- Freckleton: Meridian city ordinance does require the final plat is filed within one year of the preliminary plat -- Borup: That's what I was thinking. Freckleton: -- approval, so what we are probably going to see is some concurrent development going on. We are going to have Sundance and then we are going to have some going on in Sundance Place, too, in order to keep their preliminary plat alive. Borup: Either that or they are going to have to apply for an extension. Freckleton: Correct. Borup: Is that -- Bowcutt: Yes, sir. So we could be two years out. Or, like Bruce said, they could do the first phase of his in conjunction with the second or third phase of the Sundance project. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19,2002 Page 92 of 96 Borup: Okay. Do we need some -- I'm surprised staff didn't say something about the access to that eastern parcel. Do we need to word something in there that it would be needed, unless there is other access available or something along that line? I mean, obviously, it's going to depend on how fast Heritage Commons develops, too. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Chairman Borup, yes, I would concur with you that it is dependent on the timing and certainly if -- you know, the phasing of the final plat, it probably could be attached to the final plats and staff, essentially, would review access at the time of final plat submittal for Sundance Place future phases and, yes, you could just simply, yes, say prior to the second phase there needs to be a -- Borup: Secondary access. Hawkins-Clark: -- secondary -- Borup: Either permanent or emergency. Hawkins-Clark: Either permanent or emergency constructed. Borup: Does that sound like that covers that? Zaremba: It works for me. Borup: Okay. You're the one that caught it. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that the Public Hearing on Items 12 and 13 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, AZ 02-016, request for annexation and zoning of 42.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development, east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo of September 11th, 2002. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MeridIan Planning & Zoning September 19, 2002 Page 93 of 96 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Item 13. Did we ever settle anything on our ped path? We quit talking about it, didn't we? Zaremba: The applicant agreed to figure out a place to put one. Borup: A lot of it depends on how that property is going to develop. It could be a real waste. You could have a pathway to nowhere. But I don't know. I don't know what a good solution is. Zaremba: What advantage or disadvantage would it be to the other small parcel? I mean if they start to develop it, again, understanding they have stub streets in a small parcel is a problem, is a pathway going to do more problem than good? Borup: Could you have a pathway coming up -- I don't know if that helps the block lengths, but a pathway coming from the open area there, too. Actually, it's already there, essentially. Zaremba: The 0 nly difficulty with that, in my thinking, is inviting people from another subdivision to use your open space. Borup: Well, never mind. I was looking at the old plat. The new plat -- the new plat doesn't do that. Zaremba: Yes. It doesn't connect. Borup: No. I was looking at the old one. Zaremba: Yes. Borup Well, it would be a lot easier if the neighbors would decide what they want to do with their thing all at the same time. I have heard a couple of rumors on what he wants to do, but -- Zaremba: I would be willing to phrase it in such a way that the applicant and staff could work it out. Just leave it hanging? Borup: Well, is that something that could be adjusted when this phase is ready for development? Is that too much of a -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, the final plats have to come in, in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat. I believe that if they submit a final plat -- if you said no pathway and they submit a final plat and for some reason the City wants to add one, that would be adding a lot to an approved preliminary plat. I -- no, I think -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 19. 2002 Page 94 of 96 Borup: So if we said, yes, pathway, and then they eliminated it -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. You can reduce the number of lots, so that would probably be the better way to go. Borup: What I'm thinking, you know, four years down the road be able to judge better what's really reasonable and feasible. Yes. I mean what's going to be feasible for the other property, mainly. How does that sound, Becky? Zaremba: Everything is thumbs up. Borup: Is that -- I mean what we said there is require a pathway somewhere, realizing that four years from now it may be eliminated. Zaremba: In that case, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, PP 02-010, request for preliminary plat approval of 144 building lots and five other lots on 42.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Place Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development, east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo of September 11th, 2002, with the following exceptions: On page seven add an item eleven that says a pedestrian pathway shall be added in Block 5 at the applicant's choice in the area of Lot 28 or the area of Lot 35. To add a paragraph 12 that says if phasing should cause the development of the eastern portions before the proposed stub streets connect to anything, a second access will be provided -- a second emergency access will be provided over the existing sewer easement that is at Block 4 between Lots -- it is Lot 5? I'm sorry. Block 4, Lot 5 is the sewer easement. Borup: And they would decide on their method of surfacing? Zaremba: Uh-huh. I'm leaving that open. Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, you might want to throw something in there that it would be a surface and design that was approved by the Meridian Fire Department. Zaremba: Yes. Continuing with my motion. Such access -- emergency access to be designed in conjunction with approval by the Meridian Fire Department. Borup: Does that conclude your motion? Zaremba: Did I put in that that was conditional on other streets not being connected? that condition -- okay. Then I'm done. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?