Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 16, 2003 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 21 of 132 Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from January 2, 2003: AZ 02-028 Request for annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-Q zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation - south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from January 2, 2003: PP 02-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 building lots and 33 other lots on 81.54 acres in proposed R-8 and L-Q zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation - south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: Item Numbers 5 and 6, AZ 02-028 and PP 02-027, are both Continued Public Hearings from the January 2 nd meeting, sow e would - - well, we don't need to open them. We'd like to proceed with those. I think we left that with a number of items that need to be addressed and, Mr. McKinnon, would you like to speak to how those items were addressed? McKinnon: I sure would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You should have all received a revised staff report for this application. You should have, underneath the application summary, in bold stating that this is a revision and the date of January 13th by myself at the end of that paragraph. I assume you were all here at the last meeting, but on the overhead there is an example of the plat. This plat that we have on the overhead right now does not show the changes that have been made by the applicant. However, we will be able to detail a lot of the information that you do have from the revised plat that we still need to discuss tonight and some of the issues that have been resolved. I'd like to have you all turn to Page 6 of the new staff report, the revised staff report. Item Number 2 regarding the Development Agreement, we have added a new sentence to this recommendation for approval -- for the condition of approval that a Development Agreement also include a temporary building restriction on Lot 4, Block 13, that's this area highlighted on this map. The new revised plat shows a temporary emergency vehicle access at this location, heading diagonally through Lot 4, accessing this irrigation maintenance road and, then, directing all the way back out to McMillan Road. We would require that that lot be required to have a building restriction until such time as the second phase of the project would provide a secondary means of access to that area. That would be the only -- the only requirement that we had that changed on the annexation. If I could get you now to turn to Page 7 of the staff report concerning additional considerations. Item Number 1, again, an additional sentence has been added to the additional consideration concerning lot dimensions and setbacks. While the applicant was revising the plat, one of the requirements was that he add a stub street in this location to the open space at the end of this cul-de-sac. The applicant has done that. However, in making those changes, he's reduced the minimum cul-de-sac frontage from over 40 to less than 40. There is a requirement for a 40-foot frontage -- there is a 40-foot frontage requirement, but there is now 38 feet, so the plat will have to be changed. Not stub street. Did I say stub street? I'm sorry. I meant minimum frontage requirement. Excuse me. Lot No.3 -- Item No.3 -- gosh, I'm getting Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 22 of 132 my words confused. I'll slow down. Additional considerations, Number 3, micropaths. The applicant h as added the m icropath as were discussed at the last meeting. We have eliminated the block length. These two go together because one of the requirements at the last meeting was that they add some micropaths in order to break up the block lengths and to submit for a Variance. The applicant has submitted for a Variance for the block lengths and they have added the stub streets that were 'requested. At this time staff would ask for further -- further micropaths in the locations that are highlighted and noted in the plat -- noted in the staff report. That would be this open space that leads to this open space. Rather than just have that be a grassy narrow pathway, with no asphalt, we would ask that there be a n asphalt pathway to connect to this open space within this area, rather than -- and the reason for this would be that although it meets and exceeds the width of the micro path requirement. Unless it is a micropath there, the developer and people who buy homes in this location would be allowed to put fences that are six feet tall adjacent to that. We'd like to limit them from putting six-foot tall fences adjacent to that narrow access to the open space. In addition to that, the open space, this long narrow piece, rather than just leave that as grassy open space, we would require that that bed eveloped a s a micropath, giving access there, just to keep it from becoming a six-foot tall fence corridor back to open space. Centers: A four-foot fence would be the maximum. McKinnon: A four-foot fence would be the max and that is going to be another one of the additional requirements of the plat that we are going to go through tonight. It wasn't caught at the original time of review that the plat did not include a note to -- a note to limit those to four feet. On Page 8 -- Borup: David? McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Could there be a requirement for a maximum fence height without making that a micropath, which would accomplish the same thing as far as the fencing. McKinnon: We could do that. Borup: I mean that could be an option. McKinnon: That could be an option. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: That absolutely could be an option. Onto Page 8, we were able to strike three of the additional considerations. The first one being right of way. The applicant has revised the plat to show the actual right of way. In addition to that, Item Number 8, the street buffering and landscaping, that has been addressed by the applicant on the new plan. Number 10, the office park common areas, they have -- they have on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 23 of 132 new plat -- do you remember correctly -- if you remember from the last time you met on this project there were a number of lots within the office park area that weren't common and they weren't connected and the applicant has cleaned that up. Page 9, Number 12, the irrigation easement needs to be stricken. That was the small 1 a-foot wide easement along the north, just from here to here. There was some discussion as to why it was just in those locations. The applicant has addressed that. Staff to -- well, to the staff's approval. We no longer have that as an additional consideration. Finally, there is a -- Zaremba: David, I'm sorry to interrupt. Identify that again. To me north is here. McKinnon: Oh, north. I'm sorry. Top of the screen. I usually have them oriented north is the top. Sorry. There was a 10 foot wide irrigation easement running across the top of the east side, I guess, of the property and that is a lateral, it's right up through there, and it will soon be vacated, according to the developer. Item Number 13, a new temporary vehicle access. I just brought that up, because the applicant has included that. In talking with the Fire Department, that temporary vehicle access on Lot 4 down in the corner of this plat is required to be improved in such a manner that a fire truck or a vehicle that weighs 70,000 pounds would be able to pass across that. I have talked with the applicant about that and they said that that would not be a problem to improve that roadway and improve a vehicular access across that lot to standards that would support a 70,000-pound vehicle. The site-specific comments are still the same until we get to Page 10 and the License Agreement for Settler's Irrigation for the proposed trees along the street buffer. I'm just going to go through the changes and I'm going to just -- I will go through and tell you how they made some of these changes. The applicant is here tonight to explain some of the changes, because staff still has some concerns with a few of them and we will address the street buffer in just a little bit in more depth. Item Number 1 O. This is the new m icropath that we requested that Chairman Borup just talked about that would be possible to possibly limit the fence height at that location. Item Number 12, we talked just a second ago about that, that the fence height adjacent to the micropaths and they had to add - they have to add a note to the face of the plat regarding the dedication and maintenance of Lot 1, Block 1, and the other lots -- this is all under Item Number 12. What lots those are referring to are these lots that run around the periphery of the subdivision. These are the access roads for the maintenance of the irrigation ditches and those are not addressed in the plat or by the applicant as to who will - who will be maintaining those and who the ownership will be of those and the applicant can address that tonight. Typically, we require that those be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, but I haven't had a chance to talk with the applicant concerning their final decision on how they would like to handle those. We'd like some information on that tonight regarding dedication and maintenance of those lots. Again, the applicant has made several corrections to the lot dimensions. This is Item Number 13. However, they haven't caught all of the lot dimensions and they are noted in here to require that those minimum lot -- the minute -- not the minimum. Excuse me. Require that the lot dimensions be included on the face of the plat. Item Numbers 14 and 15 were stricken. They have added phase lines and they have added labels as requested. Finally, going back to the recommendation on Page 12, they have, essentially, addressed all the items that have not been stricken. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Janual'f 16. 2003 Page 24 at 132 The bullet points. The micro paths have been addressed and included by the applicant. However, there was still some discussion concerning the stub street that would have been located at a pproximately someplace a long this block to access the multi -- the multi-family housing or the attached single-family housing area. The Lemp Canal easement width, this is something that is out on the frontage right here, running from top to bottom. There was some discussion as to how wide the Lemp Canal easement was there and where it was located and whether or not it was properly located. In discussion with the applicant in the last couple of weeks, they have determined that the Lemp Canal is right on the edge of pavement. A requirement for the 40-foot easement is not necessarily a requirement of Settler's, because of the fact that part of what would be the 40-foot easement, 20 feet on either side of the center line, currently exists in public right of way. There would be no requirement for those 20 feet to be in an easement, because it's already public land and the applicant can address that a little bit more. Staff does have concerns, however, that Settler's Irrigation has not yet issued a letter saying that that's the case. We don't know that that's truly the case yet it was just the developer saying that this is how they believed that Settler's would handle this. In the past Settler's has requested that they have an access road on both sides of the ditch. If that's the case, that could dramatically change what happens on the road frontage in this subdivision. The right 0 f way width has been addressed. The street buffer and landscaping width was addressed. The office park parking has not yet been addressed. The applicant still has all the parking shown on the plat for this and the parking for the subdivision in the office park area does not meet the landscape requirements and, again, staff would suggest that they just eliminate all the parking shown on the plat, because we are not approving it the way they have shown that. The easiest way to do that would just be to eliminate the parking and, then, come back in with their Certificates of Zoning Compliance and show us what parking they are doing and meeting the Landscape Ordinance. They have met the other requirement for the plat notes and data. Those are the things that we have changed. The applicant is here tonight and the things that we really need to have addressed tonight, just to put it into a nutshell, would be that the lots around the periphery of the subdivision and the maintenance roads. We need to find out who is going to own and maintain those and whether they are just going to remain as access roads. We need to have some discussion tonight concerning the Lemp Canal easement along the street frontage and whether or not Settler's Irrigation would require them to have a 40-foot easement for the entire width of that -- that irrigation ditch. If you would like, we can discuss a little bit more, whether or not t here should be a stub street in the original proposed location here. I know there was a lot of discussion about that. I read the minutes from the last meeting, it seems that you were in favor of allowing them not to have a stub street if there was a micro path there. There is a micropath, but if you would like to re-address that tonight, we believe that that would be something that would be appropriate for discussion. With that, I would ask if there are any questions of staff and turn the time back over to you. Zaremba: Just a comment on the stub street that you were just talking about. My recollection of that was it actually was a two-part choice that there should be a stub Meridian Planning and Zoning CommissIon Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 25 of 132 street where you're talking about or, the alternative is a micro path that is shown and an access directly onto McMillan. McKinnon: Right. Zaremba: And, according to the new plat that I have, they have a note that says there is a future street access onto McMillan, so that there are two ways in and out of the unplatted portion, if that is going to happen. In that case, then, the micropath was satisfactory. McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, M embers of the Commission, your statement is accurate and the note on the plat says that it would be in compliance with the ACHD guidelines. However, it's not a street that actually has been approved by ACHD at this time. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? I think Mr. McKinnon did a good job of summarizing. Is there anything you want to -- is that what you're planning on doing is hitting those points that he mentioned? Fluke: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. We did endeavor to make all the changes that the Commission wanted to see from the last hearing and I think we pretty did that, with a couple of small oversights, one of those being the parking area that -- the office park. We don't have any problem with turning it off or putting the landscape islands in - turning off the line work that is for the parking. Not a problem. Borup: So that would be your choice at this time, you're just going to delete the parking? Fluke: That's fine, if that's staff's preference, or we can put the landscape islands in compliance with the Landscape Plan. They are shown correctly on the Landscape Plan. The line work just didn't get transferred over to the plat, so no big deal either way. We did add the micropaths, as you wanted. Not a problem with fixing the frontage on this lot. That has been done. We added the path here. We do have room for a stub. We would ask that you not impose a condition of approval on us adding the stub street there. We do have room, we can do it later on, but we would prefer to explore this secondary access with ACHD when we come back with the subsequent application for development of this parcel here. Borup: Now, you're in agreement with having that as a non-build on that lot? Fluke: Fine with the non-build. I do want to take exception with the language and just ask that we do modify that. If you want to look at Page 6 of the staff report, Number 2 at Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 26 of 132 the top of the page, it says -- there is a dash about mid paragraph. A little further than mid, where it says, until a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development is approved for the project, we would just simply ask that that - that you strike a Conditional Use Permit for a planned and just insert an appropriate application for development. We understand that we have to submit a new application for development of the parcel. We just don't know that it will have to be a Planned Development Application. We don't want, later on, to have that become a problem for us. Zaremba: Actually, we should discuss that. The staff has suggested that it does require a Planned Development, that when it comes back, it does come back as a Planned Development. What is the -- what difference does it make? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I can take a crack at that. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Fluke: The R-B zone would allow for lots as small -- we have asked for R-B zoning on all of this, except for the office park. Borup: And that's what -- I was going to ask if that's what direction you're going. You're saying you may -- you may end up designing something there that would be in compliance with an R-B, possibly? Fluke: Correct. R-B would allow us to go down to lots as small as 4,500 square feet. McKinnon: 4,000. Fluke: 4,000, 4,500, somewhere in there. What we have always intended to do with that, although it's not been decided, as largely due to the market conditions, but what was intended was to do something higher density in there, attached single-family is likely, you know, row homes, town homes, that kind of thing, on smaller lots. A zero lot line type of development, which would require a plat -- we'd have to come in here and create some lots on here, because all this - this big lot will only be entitled to a single Building Permit. I can guarantee you we won't be building a single-family dwelling or a duplex on that lot, we are going to have to come back in and plat it. We wouldn't necessarily have to do a Planned Development. If we get into a Planned Development, when we don't have to, it raises other questions with open space, I mean -- and other amenities that might have to be required, when we wouldn't be asking for anything special that would require a Planned Development. Just bear in mind that we have designed the development with over 10 percent open space, five being required. We designed it with that in mind and we will provide open space, so you will get another crack at it. It might be a Planned Development, it might be a Rezone on there, but just know that you will see an appropriate application before it develops. We are not asking for a Carte Blanch on - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 27 of 132 Centers: Yes. Well, you want to remove the words Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development. Fluke: Right and we would just sayan appropriate application for a development, because there will be an application required regardless. We just want - we don't to be locked into a Planned Development when the law might not requirement it. We might just come in with something in compliance with the R-B zone and you will review that as a plat. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, and Daren, staff has not objections to the requested change. That would be appropriate. Zaremba: What I was focusing on and I finally found it -- on Page 5 under additional considerations, one, two, three, four - the fourth sentence in. that paragraph says, staff further recommends that the future project be required to be approved as a Planned Development. Borup: I think that was making the assumptions that they were going to go ahead with the high-density project. Zaremba: So we are all right with dropping the requirement? I tend to agree with the applicant, as long as the entire -- I realize they are doing it in two phases, but as long as the entire project complies with an R-B zone, how far a field could they go on that one little parcel? Borup: And it still has to come back before us anyway. Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: Again, staff has no objections to the request - Zaremba: So we can release that? McKinnon: Yes. Fluke: Thank you. Borup: And the other was just a Conditional -- I mean additional consideration for -- sensitive for discussion. It wasn't - that part wasn't in their comments. Centers: Yes. It wasn't a requirement, but as they say-- Zaremba: Paragraph two that Mr. Fluke was mentioning. Fluke: Right. It was Steve's preference that it be a Planned Development and I spoke with him at length about that and, then, we discussed it at the last hearing as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 26 of 132 Borup: So it would have to either be changed, the wording - could we just cross out Conditional Use Permit for a planned and just stay until a development is approved and a project. Centers: Appropriate application for. Fluke: That would be fine with us. Moving on to Page 7, Item Number 4 on the stub streets. Again, we would just simply ask that any condition that you put on, either or condition, that we either provide a stub street here or that we provide an additional connection, either -- it would be a street or a drive access, depending on the type of development that goes in here to McMillan Road. Under the current conditions, there is no problem getting another access there. We meet all the offsets. There are no driveways or any streets that are in the way and that would be the preference. What we don't necessarily want to have happen is to have vehicular traffic from the detached single-family portion of the development winding its way through what will likely be narrow roads and a higher density development. We have provided a pedestrian connection right here, which is what we are -- what the staff was trying to get at was connectivity and, then, the other consideration is secondary access or two points of access to this and we think we can do it better by McMillan. If we can't get this access for some reason, then, we will have to provide a stub here. We still have to have that 'figured out by Phase 1 or 2 of the single-family development. We are just asking to modify that 0 ne. We talked a bout the parking loti ayout. With regard to these lots, these contain irrigation ditches. In this one it will be piped here along the east boundary. This is the White Drain here. It's a rather large drainage feature and it is Settler's preference that that remain open. They did request that, the City Council, with the approval of Cedar Springs NO.1. We anticipate that that will be true for this. We can show that that's large enough that it wouldn't typically have to be piped, that, you know, the pipe would have to be so big that it wouldn't be economical to do it. What we did with Cedar Springs No. 1 right here was platted in a common lot that is owned by the homeowner's a ssociation. A n easement is, then, given to Settler's and t hey a re responsible for the maintenance of it. Zaremba: Who? Fluke: The Settler's Irrigation District and it was their preference that that's how it handled and we anticipate that that's how it will be handled on this phase as well -- or on this project, but, again, these are issues that we typically work out at the Final Plat stage. We just never know at the preliminary plat stage. We have a good idea, but I can't tell you for sure. ' Zaremba: If that were the result, you're okay with that? Fluke: Yes I mean we have to -- we have to satisfy Settler's, unfortunately, and they are somewhat difficult to work with. We have managed to comply with them in the past and, you know, whatever it is, we have designed it the way we did, because that's what they Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 29 of 132 have indicated they are going to want, but until we get to the Final Plat stage, we won't have anything in writing. Centers: From the Settler's or the homeowner's association? Fluke: The homeowner's association will own the lot, it w ill own the real estate, but Settler's will have an exclusive easement on it and they will be responsible for the maintenance. Borup: And that's for the White Drain? Fluke: Correct. Borup: Okay. How about that other-- Fluke: We anticipate them doing that with this ditch as well. Borup: That's Settler's also? Fluke: Yes and that will be in a pipe on that one. Borup: So they would be doing the east and the south? Fluke: Correct. Now, with regard to - and we may as well talk about the Lemp Canal ,here on the north end of the property and the right of way issue. Right now, there exists 50 feet of right of way, prescriptive right of way along McMillan Road that would be 25 feet from centerline. Our description goes to the centerline of the road currently. If you take 25 feet -- well, you see it on your new drawing. We worked it out on there. There is 25 feet per the right of way. The existing ditch -- the edge -- there is only 12 feet of pavement there from centerline on our side, so there is an additional 12 or 13 feet of right of way that's not paved. The edge of the Lemp Canal comes right up to the edge of that existing right of way so there is no conflict between the right of way a nd the Lemp Canal currently. What we have done is left the right of way at 25 feet, as was requested by ACHD, we have centered a 40-foot easement on the existing ditch per staff's comments from the last hearing. That's why you see that easement line going into the right of way, it's redundant, it's likely that it won't be shown that way on the Final Plat, but we just did it because of the discussion at the last hearing. Then, south of the right of way line, Settler's has an additional 20 feet of easement where we don't show anything. Okay. I mean that's theirs. It's likely they are going to want a road in there. What our preference would be -- to put grass creet in there nor something, that looks nice and will hold their trucks, but we are going to be at their mercy on that. Then, we show an additional 35 feet of landscaping south of their easement. We have accommodated the canal in its existing location. We do anticipate that that will be left open and we will either show hydraulically that it needs to be left open or we will get Settler's to request it to the City Council and we don't anticipate that it will be a problem. It's a fairly significant ditch. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 30 of 132 Centers: Will they have an access road on each side? Fluke: There will be right of way on the north side of their ditch public right of way. The right of way comes right up to the edge of their ditch currently, so they will have - there will be a sidewalk there and, then, two feet. Borup: They don't want to use that side for maintenance I take it? Fluke: Well, they, initially, wanted a road on both sides. Borup: Well, I think that's what Commissioner Centers is getting at, why on both sides? Centers: Well, that's what the staff had mentioned earlier, that sometimes they do require that. Fluke: Yes. They will ask for everything initially and, then, you know, when we get to the Final Plat is where we really try to get something that works for everybody. So-- and, like I said, they are somewhat difficult to work. If you'd like to - if this Commission would like to recommend that they don't have a road there, we would be certainly happy to comply with that. Zaremba: Let me see if I understand correctly. On the north side of the canal, if they wanted to drive along and park maintenance trucks, they would actually be parking on McMillan? Fluke: Correct. There would be a sidewalk. Zaremba: That's why they probably want a south side road. Or at least -- Fluke: Well, bear in mind, that there is 12 feet from the current edge of pavement to their ditch. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Fluke: So there will be sidewalk two feet within that right of way. In other words, ditch, two-foot strip of land, then, a six-foot sidewalk. Zaremba: They could park their trucks on the sidewalk. Fluke: Well, they can. The sidewalks will support a truck, for as much as they maintenance that ditch. I mean if you have been out there recently, you see they -- they don't seem too worried about it currently. Zaremba: Once a year they come along and bum, probably, and that's about it. Fluke: Or once in 10 years. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 31 of 132 Zaremba: Yes. Fluke: So, you know, again, this is something that we would love to have it worked out now, but we have left plenty of margin there to work it out no matter what they want so I think we are well covered on that. As far as the micropaths, these were intended to be paths they just weren't indicated that way on the legend so not a problem with just putting the hatching on those and developing those as micropaths to the standards of the landscape ordinance. Borup: Okay so that was your intention anyway? Fluke: Correct. Borup: Just those two or the wide one also? Fluke: I think everything else is shown the way it should be. Borup: Okay so it will just be those two? Fluke: Correct. Centers: If I understand correctly, it would be Block 14 up in the comer there, just eliminate all of the parking indication on the plat, and you would do the landscaping? Fluke: This? Centers: Correct. Fluke: We have a Landscape Plan in the application that I believe complies, so it's just - - we can either make the line work here jive with the Landscape Plan or we can just turn the line work off for the parking. Centers: Right. Fluke: We will just indicate it as parking and I think that's all. Dave, did I miss anything? Centers: Yes, I think it is. Zaremba: Let me do one on that subject before. If it's just as easy for you either way, I probably would prefer that you show the landscaping. Fluke: Okay. That's fine. Zaremba: So that the two pieces look the same. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 32 of 132 Fluke: Sure. Borup: And the McKinney Lateral, will that -- oh, that's not a separate lot, that's just an easement. Fluke: That's an easement yes. We should maybe discuss this. This is a -- this is going to be treated as a user's ditch, rather than as a ditch owned and maintained by Settler's. It only serves one property to the west and it's likely that that - this will not be around very long, that's why we intend to put it in a pipe and a 10 foot easement, rather than putting it in a common lot. We also have the option of running the water from this ditch and simply running it through this stub through an easement through the park here and I discussed that with 0 ur engineer a nd so we will work that 0 ut 0 ne way 0 r the other, but we don't really need anything more than that easement here on the north. Borup: Okay so to the staff question on -- as far as ownership and maintenance, the homeowner's association will retain ownership and Settler's will intend to do the maintenance of this -- Fluke: Actually, we - the homeowner's association will be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of it. Borup: No. I meant of the other two. Fluke: Oh the other two? Correct. Borup: Right. Fluke: Yes. Borup: No. I understood the homeowners would be maintenance on this one. Fluke: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think if you recall at the last hearing -- correct me if I'm wrong -- we talked about additional tests on the groundwater from the year 2000 to date. Fluke: Correct. Centers: Did you bring those tests? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, thank you for bringing that up. I forgot to mention that. The north part of this property is -- has been owned by a different owner who had those test wells installed. The wells are there and we have -- we had them checked when we did the application, but they have not been monitoring them through time, and we are going to have to begin the monitoring now of those wells and we will do that, you know, through the next year. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 33 of 132 Centers: They are really not wells. Fluke: Well, they are test bids. Centers: Test holes. Fluke: Yes. Centers: I guess I would want to hear what staff thinks of that, but if you did have a problem with the DEO, the way I understood it at the last hearing, was that some of your buildable lots could become open space. Fluke: Well-- Centers: That, of course, didn't have structures on them. Fluke: Right and I will just go ahead and address that. We have got ample open space to accommodate about 10 percent or over 10 percent. What we anticipate and what the initial investigation has shown is that we have similar hydrological conditions to Cedar Springs to t he south of us. Groundwater there was running a bout s even feet below surface and that has been monitored through time. Our landscape architect was able to design an open space system that complied with both the City's Landscape Ordinance, as well as the DEO requirements and that is what we anticipate to do with this future phase. We understand -- or with this future development. We understand that if the DEO says that we are not able to infiltrate water and Settler's says we can't put any water into the ditches, the drainage water, that the city is going to end up with some very large, very ugly drainage structures and it won't be just our development, it will be all kinds of developments out here. You will be in a bad way, but-- Centers: Well, you said you had ample open space of 10 percent. Are you saying, then, that you would use part of that for drainage and not replace it, so that you still had ten percent when you had a finished project? Fluke: We will comply with the Landscape Ordinance and we will comply with the requirements of DEO. Center: Yes. You're offering up 10 percent, which is in excess. Fluke: Correct. Centers: So if you need additional lots for drainage, are you going to take -- or additional area, are you going to take it from the existing 10 or are you going to end up with 10 percent period? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 34 of 132 Fluke: We don't have a problem with the condition the way it's written. I mean if we have to take out m ore lots because the city, DEQ and Settler's want large drainage structures on there, large ponds -- Centers: T hat's what I'm getting at. If DEQ becomes involved and you need more drainage area -- and, let's face it, most of the area that you're supplying there now is due to drainage correct? Fluke: Well, it does accommodate drainage. Centers: Right, so I'm concerned that we wouldn't lose part of that 10 percent. ,Fluke: We understand that -- Centers: And you end up with 10. It may not be configured exactly that way and I understand that, so -- Fluke: Okay. Centers: As long as we are in agreement, that's fine. Borup: Daren, the monitor wells were put in, in 2000 or prior to that? Fluke: I'm sorry. Say again. Borup: The wells the monitoring wells. Fluke: Yes. Borup: Were they installed in the year 2000? Fluke: They were. Borup: And so they were measured at that time? Fluke: They were measured at that time and we have current data. Borup: And you have got current data, so we are only -- Fluke: So it is measuring through time and we weren't checking the piezometer, you know, several times a year like you should. 'Centers: Yes four times a year. Fluke: So we are going to have to monitor it through this -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng January 16. 2003 Page 35 of 132 Borup: But you got measurements for then and now and - Fluke: Yes. Borup: And assuming that's consistent with the other, you sound like you feel comfortable with the results. Centers: Well -- and the other measurement, Mr. Chairman, was at a time when the groundwater would be lower, if I recall. I'm not going to look back, because I'm sure I'm right on that. Fluke: I think it was in the fall. Centers: Yes after- Fluke: About the time water gets turned off. Centers: Right. Borup: Well, that's about the time about as high as it is, unless it's a long time after. McKinnon: August is the highest time. Centers: Whatever but - Fluke: I don't remember when we checked them. Centers: As the applicant knows, they need to measure it three or four times. Borup: Right but I guess what I'm thinking -- and, apparently, they feel comfortable with that - if those measurements, the few that they have, are consistent with the adjoining subdivision, the assumption would be the other ones in between that would probably say the same ratio. Centers: Oh, I don't think the applicant wants a problem like another leading builder in town has presently. I think you're going to do your tests and you're not going to build basements, I bet. Fluke: No, I don't think there will be basements. Centers: Or allow them. Well, what if the builder wants to go in there and build a basement? I mean are we going to have anything on the plat or -- you know, when you have a seven-foot -- pardon? What was mentioned is that the covenants will require the builders to do their own testing, whether they could put in a basement correct? Borup: We need to get that on testimony. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 36 of 132 Centers: Yes but-- Borup: I don't know if we can -- I mean you can't legislate against stupidity. Centers: That's true. Borup: If someone wants to do something against all common sense and advice, I don't know if we can worry about every little thing like that. Centers: Yes and I think if they put it in the covenants and, then, warn them there you have got to do your own tests then, that builder is going to be held liable if they have water in the basement. Fluke: All of north Meridian has similar conditions and so the builders around here are accustomed to doing that. Centers: That's fine with me. Zaremba: Let me ask just one kind of a housekeeping question, I guess. Is it still 197 building lots and 33 other lots since that sometimes seems to change on a revised plat? You're not aware that you eliminated any lots or-- Fluke: Correct. Yes. The lot count didn't change from any of the amendments. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: The micropaths just made the others smaller and, then, we have got one non- buildable, so that would be the only -- Fluke: Temporarily non-buildable. Borup: Temporarily. Zaremba: So it's still 197 and 33. Centers: That cul-de-sac with 38-foot frontage, is that the one you're referring to as temporary? Fluke: No. I was, actually, referring to this. Centers: Okay. Fluke: What we have got is a temporary emergency access. Centers: But you have corrected that 38-foot frontage? Mendlan Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng January 16. 2003 Page 37 of 132 Fluke: Yes we have already done that internally. I didn't submit new drawings, but-- Centers: Well, we will just require it. Fluke: We just had to scoot it around a little bit. Centers: Yes. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Fluke: Thank you. Borup: Thank you, Daren. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Centers: I have a question for staff. How did you feel about the comments about the canal what's the name of that canal? McKinnon: Lemp. Centers: Yes. Lemp. I guess it's up to them to work it out with Settler's correct? McKinnon: It is and it -- wow, just a couple issues that were involved. The idea that Settler's could come back and say we want additional right of way, we want, you know, some roadway on both sides, we want you to do something with this canal, other than what's there right now, that option is still there. If Settler's comes back after you guys have approved this tonight and makes a separate requirement of the applicant, all the frontage on McMillan is going to change. All the Landscape Plans that have been submitted and all of the office park area that fronts onto it will all have to be shifted. That's something that makes me a little bit neNOUS. Centers: So if we say if Settler's requires access on the south side of the Lemp Canal, then, this applicant would have to come back? Borup: They are okay on the south side, aren't they? Centers: I thought it was the south side. McKinnon: The south side has got the 20 feet. It's the north side that - where there is a public right of way. Borup: But that's the existing right of way right now? McKinnon: That's the existing right of way right now. Meridian PI'anning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 38 of 132 Borup: So they have got to -- you're saying they can move their right of way just on a whim? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might, on the north, it's just not ours to give. I mean we don't own it. The deeds show that the property line is the centerline, which is - of the road, which is the section line. ACHD has served a prescriptive right of way there, because they have maintained that road for more than, whatever it is, seven or eight years, whatever is required. They assert ownership of 25 feet from centerline, which 25 feet from centerline would take you right to the edge of the Lemp Canal. Okay so, then, you have got your Lemp Canal and we have given them from -- from the center line of the Lemp Canal another 20 feet south, before we start our 35 feet of landscaping. It can only get better for us. If we don't have to give them 20 feel. if they only want 12 feet and a road, we gain eight feet that way. Borup: So, then, Mr. McKinnon is saying can they go in and shift their -- is that what you're - wouldn't they also have to move the canal, though? Fluke: We would maintain that they cannot make us move the canal. We don't need to move it. It's out of the right of way. We will give them - Borup: Well, no, I don't think they will make you move the canal, but -- I mean to shift the right of way, that would be the option is to move canal, wouldn't it? They are not going to do that either. McKinnon: There could be a shift in the easement. Fluke: If-- Borup: But for what purpose? McKinnon: For maintenance. Settler's -- I don't understand how they set their policy and that's one of the things that has me concerned, is we don't have anything from Settler's saying this is what we want on the Lemp Canal. We don't know what their policy is on the Lemp Canal right now. Centers: Will you have it resolved before the City Council Meeting? Fluke: I doubt it. Typically, we have nothing in writing until we get to the Final Plat but I mean, like I say, if, for example, ACHD said that they were going to want their typical 48 feet of right of way we had to, then, dedicate another 23 feet. We have then been, required to give 23 feet of right of way to ACHD, sell it to them, and, then, take the canal and move it outside of the new right of way. In that case, you know, yes, Settler's is going to say, okay, take our 40-foot of easement and center it on there and give us 20 feet from center line on both sides because we are not required to move the right of way. We are also not required to move the ditch it can stay where it has historically Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 39 of 132 been located. We will give them their easement, we will give them their access on the south, but we don't have anything to give on the north, because we don't own it. Zaremba: I. think we had heard during testimony two weeks ago -- well, I'm not sure whether it was you or one of the other people in the audience -- that they know for a fact that ACHD is planning to take any future right of way on north side and not expand any farther south. Fluke: That's correct and that's in our staff report. That's why we are -- that's why we drew this new plan the way we did. They only want their existing 25 feet of right of way from us. Zaremba: So ACHD isn't going to move south, which means Settler's doesn't have to move south. Fluke: Correct. Zaremba: And you feel that 20 additional feet that you have left can only get smaller? Fluke: Correct. Centers: This is Phase 1 right? Fluke: No I believe we are going to phase from the north end. Centers: Are you? Fluke: So it's likely that the -- Centers: Go ahead. Fluke: -- the office park and the multi-family will remain out as later phases, we will make the road connection, come in and probably do 50 to 75 lots south of the multi- family and the office. Centers: And the Lemp Canal is not a factor, because you're not going to be developing -- right? Fluke: Well- Borup: That's a good point. At worst, case scenario that could be redesigned, if that's what had to happen. Centers: Yes. That's what I'm saying. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 40 of 132 Fluke: Yes. It's likely that we will want to build the front end -- why don't we let the client come up and discuss that. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a question for the applicant when he arrives concerning whether or not discussions have been made with ACHD concerning the fact that the Lemp Canal is in their right of way and whether or not they will allow it to remain in their right of way. Is it just adjacent to the right of way, Daren? Borup: Go ahead. Kevin, let's go ahead. Howell: Kevin Howell 3450 Plantation River Drive. As far as the Lemp Canal, yes, we have got plenty 0 f time tow ark with t hat a nd find out exactly what that easement is going to be there. If we do have to put a road on the other side for access, we will. Probable concrete or pavement 10, 12 feet wide and just landscape right to it. Centers: Mr. Howell, excuse me, I think he needs your name and address. Howell: Kevin Howell 3451 Plantation River Drive. Centers: Excuse me. Okay. Howell: So if we do have to put a road on the other side, we will, but I think we can resolve that issue. They have been cleaning out that ditch, actually recently, you can see where they have piled the dirt on it they have been cleaning if from McMillan. Whatever improvements we have to do to it, we will do to it, but we do have plenty of time, because we are not going to do the office buildings probably for a year or two. As far as the drainage is concerned with the water questions, if we had to use up any space, there are places we can add in the parcel that we left out we could drain water to. If you look at Cedar Springs No. 1 and landscaped all of it extensively, try to put benches in there, rocks, boulders, try to make them not look like a drainage pond. We realize, you know, it's a strike against the subdivision to have those drainage ponds, so whatever we do, if we have to put in more, we will make sure that they fit in and not just leave a pit. Borup: Does that answer it? Centers: Yes. Borup: Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a question for the applicant. Mr. Howell, just one question for you. Bruce and I were looking at the plat and the whole Lemp discussion we were looking at the McMillan frontage. You have Phase 4, which is the office park, and Phase 5, which is the attached single-family dwelling. You show all of the frontage on McMillan Road, all the landscape buffer being Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 41 of 132 in the fourth and fifth phases. Is it your intention to leave that frontage unimproved with no landscaping until the fourth and fifth phases? Howell: No. I would like to landscape that whole quarter mile. McKinnon: Okay. Howell: Do the whole entry and everything, landscaped fully, so that the office building and the multi-family sides are just basically pads left. McKinnon: So that would be part of the first phase? Howell: So it would be done. McKinnon: Okay. It just shows it as Phases 4 and 5 and we'd like to see you do what you have suggested you're going to do as well. Howell: Sure. Borup: Okay thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Centers: I have a question that I -- correct me if I'm wrong. I think the canal issue will handle itself if we require the landscaping, as you just discussed. If he has to give up more land, he will still have to meet our Landscape Ordinance. Follow me? He'll just have to move back into his commercial development, if he does that, he will have to come back to us on the commercial development, because what we are approving is , the plat tonight, and if that changes, we have a problem. I think we ought to just let it take care of itself. McKinnon: You're absolutely correct on that, Commissioner Centers. Centers: Okay. Zaremba: Well -- and I think the applicant is comfortable that they have 20 feet to play with, so-- McKinnon: Okay. Center: I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 42 of 132 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. I think there were - I had four items in this -- in the staff comments that need to be addressed. I think we have got all those addressed adequately. Did we? Zaremba: I would add only one that we discussed last time and have not discussed yet this time. This would be an addition on Page 6, Paragraph 2 -- I keep trying to stick in some kind of a statement to the Development Agreement that preserves some rights for the applicant. It could be a statement something like the Development Agreement will include a statement that the density calculations for Lot 18, Block 13, shall consider the entire Cedar Springs North Subdivision. Centers: You have an R-8. Zaremba: I know, but I'm just saying when this comes back as a separate issue and Development Agreement in hand, I don't want it calculated just on that one piece. The density needs to be averaged over the whole parcel. Borup: That's if it didn't come back as a Planned Unit Development, the density could increase, and that's your concem. Centers: That would be their only advantage, if they come back as a PUD. Zaremba: I think they are allowed to have a higher density on there, as long as it's averaged over the whole thing and I'm trying to preserve that for them, so that it doesn't get considered just as an isolated issue. Borup: Can we just state it pretty much just the way you said it? Zaremba: I would just add that sentence to Paragraph 2 or something similar. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, are we going to strike the Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development requirement from the DA on Page 6? Borup: Yes. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: For appropriate application. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: The change is to strike Conditional Use Permit for a planned and add the words appropriate application for. That same paragraph -- this is Paragraph 2 on Page 6. At the end of that to add a statement that says the Development Agreement will Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 43 of 132 include a statement that the density calculations for what is currently Lot 18, Block 15, shall consider the entire Cedar Springs North Subdivision. Let's see. The only other thing that I -- on Page 7, Paragraph 6, under additional considerations, we are given the opportunity to recommend our opinion to the City Council about whether the ditches ought to be tiled or not. My opinion is that we should go with the applicant, not tile them, and leave them as open amenities. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe the applicant stated that the property on the east, that ditch, would be tiled and they were intending on tiling that ditch. Zaremba: I think I was just referring to White and Lemp. McKinnon: Oh, just the White and Lemp? Okay. Borup: That's what I assumed you were talking about. Zaremba: White and Lemp that we would -- we would side with the applicant on leaving them open and I think that also complies with the new Comprehensive Plan. Centers: The applicant didn't address the -- I think they are aware of it, but they have to provide -- how does the Fire Department word it? Zaremba: A 20-foot wide -- Centers: Minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. They are aware of that yes. Zaremba: That would affect the phasing to some extent. Centers: Right. Exactly and I guess I'm in agreement with the applicant on the stub street. I don't -- I don't see the need for the stub street. It could be worded stub street or access via McMillan Road. I think that's what the applicant mentioned and I would agree with that. Zaremba: I would make it an alternate, that access to McMillan is okay, but if it does not happen -- Centers: Well, that's the way it's worded. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: The stub street, we leave that in, and we add, or access being at McMillan Road one or the other. Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 44 of 132 Centers: And the applicant agreed to make the micropaths, which would take in effect the Micropath Ordinance for the maximum four-foot fence. Borup: Do you have a comment, Mr. McKinnon? McKinnon: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, specifically Commissioner Centers, in your last comment before, you mentioned that the stub street, they should be given the option to do either/or. Centers: Yes. McKinnon: In the site-specific comments there is nothing that addresses the stub streets. Would you like to -- Centers: You're right. I see that on additional-- additional considerations. McKinnon: Would you like to make that a condition added to the site-specific comments? Centers: On the Preliminary Plat we could just use that verbiage from the consideration. McKinnon: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Centers: Right. Borup: Okay. Centers: I will try and stumble through it. Zaremba: The original staff memo is dated December 13th and the revised staff memo is dated December - I'm sorry, the 31st. They are both dated December 31st from staff. Centers: Right. It's the revised one. Zaremba: That we reference the revised one as received by the City Clerk on January 14th. Centers: Right. Yes, I had that. I'd like to recommend approval of Item 5 on our Agenda. Item AZ 02-028, request for annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for the proposed Cedar Springs North Sub by Howell-Murdoch Development Corp, south 0 f West McMillan Road and west 0 f North Meridian Road. Including all staff comments, and Page 6, Paragraph 2, strike the words Conditional Use Permit for -- and insert appropriate application for. Then, I would continue on -- Zaremba: I believe strike the word planned also. Meridian Planning and ZonIng CommIssion Meeting January 16, 20lla Page 45 of 132 Centers: And planned right. Then, continuing on, it would read development is approved for the project. Then, you would add language that would be beneficial to the developer per that would -- the density calculation would be -- would take into consideration the entire subdivision for that parcel, which is referred to as Lot 18, Block 13 end of motion. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Did we cover-- Centers: That was just the zoning. Yes. Borup: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. Correct. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Item Number -- yes. 02-027, the Preliminary Plat. Centers: Yes. I would like to recommend approval for Item 6 on the Agenda, PP 02- 027, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 lots and 33 other lots on 81.54 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Sub by Howell- Murdoch Development Corp, south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road. Including all staff comments, and, in addition -- yes -- note that all staff comments refer to the revised comments by Dave-" originally written by Steve Siddoway and Bruce Freckleton, amended by Dave McKinnon and received by the City Clerk on January 14th. Under site-specific comments on the Preliminary Plat, which starts on Page 9, add as 1-A the paragraph from Page 7, Paragraph 4, referring to stub streets. That item would become 1-A under site-specific comments and in addition to that paragraph, referring to stub streets, just add, or access via McMillan Road either/or. The applicant has indicated that further tests are due for the groundwater and he will, of course, comply with the DEQ and their present open space will be maintained, regardless of those results, if they have to give up more lots to provide for drainage. We are leaving out any reference to the Settler's, as we talked about, that should take care of itself. Does anyone have anything else? Zaremba: Just to express the opinion that we recommend leaving the Settler's Canal and the White Drain untiled. Centers: Correct. Which was -- Borup: And the applicant stated that the ownership would be through the association and maintenance from Settler's. Centers: Oh, Settler's was going to do the maintenance? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 46 ,of 132 Borup: Right. Zaremba: The homeowners wee going to own the -- Centers: Right. The homeowners would own it right. Zaremba: But Settler's would operate it. Centers: And, then, we concur that the drainage ditches should remain untiled end of motion. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Okay. That concludes those items. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 02-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a bus facility in an I-L zone for Joint School District No.2 by Joint School District No.2 - 2170 West Franklin Road: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing CUP 02-046, request for Conditional Use Permit for a bus facility in an I-L zone for Joint School District NO.2 at 2170 West Franklin Road. Open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Those of you that have been on the Commission for a little while might - this application might sound very familiar to you. It's dealing with the bus facility that we have originally discussed many times over at the comer of Ten Mile and Ustick. They have found a new home that they think would work for that, rather than the original proposed location. In front of you on the overhead you can see a map that's giving the area. To give you a little more detail than what's shown in the bolded area, approximately a month and a half ago, two months ago, the City Council approved a Variance for a one time lot split of the lot that you see that's bolded. Essentially, created a lot that runs - it creates, essentially, what would be a flag lot up to the area that's on the north that runs adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad. The reason for the lot split was to allow Sanitary Services to build at this location and to allow the school district to have an opportunity to propose the application that's in front of you tonight. The application that's in front of you tonight is for a 350-school bus parking facility, a two-story administration building, and a service building. You can see the elevations of the administration building they would like to build. A storage -- a storage and maintenance building and, finally, the overall Site Plan that shows all the bus parking, that would be all this large parking over here, the maintenance building, the administration building, employee parking and additional employee parking. A total of 456 car parking spaces, plus the 350 bus parking spaces, in addition to a fueling station at this location. As you can see from the Site Plan that's