Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWatersong Estates AZMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 16 of 106 Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we have a motion? Zaremba: Let's see. Let me just ask one question of staff. Should there be a fire inspection? I noticed a list of questions from the fire chief, which are not answered, but should they at some point -- Siddoway: Yes, I believe that the -- even on Accessory Use Permits there is a -- I know there is an inspection done by our office for the fenced yard, locked gates, you know, poisons out of reach of children, that sort of thing. I believe there is also a simple inspection done by the Fire Department for this type of use. Zaremba: And that's kind of an automatic thing, we don't need to mention it? Siddoway: It is automatic. You may mention it also if you desire, just to make sure. Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, AUP 02-012, request for an accessory -- Borup: Yes. I'm sorry. This one would not go to City Council. We approve it. Zaremba: In that case, withdraw that, and, Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we approve AUP 02-012, request for an Accessory Use Permit for a family day care for five cumulative, or fewer children out of the home in an R-4 zone for Carrie Herteux by Carrie Herteux 2948 West Gemstone Drive. To include all staff comments of the staff memo of January 30, 2003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 02-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 39.92 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Watersong Estates by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation -northwest corner of North Linder Road and West Ustick Road: Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 17 of 106 Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 02-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 125 building lots and 15 other lots on 39.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Watersong E states by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation -northwest corner of North Linder Road and West Ustick Road: Borup: Okay Item Numbers 8 and 9 are our next project. I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 02-029, request for annexation and zoning of 39.92 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Watersong Estates by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation. Also PP 02-030, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 125 lots and 15 other lots on the same p roject. Open both these Public Hearings at this time a nd start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject property as shown on the screen is on North Linder Road, just north of Ustick about a quarter mile. It is directly across the street from the property that was recently annexed for the middle school, Linder Road Middle School, and also abuts on its west boundary future phases of Bridgetower Subdivision. The subdivision that you see kind of kitty- corner to it to the northeast is -- my mind just went blank, but I will come back to that. You should have a staff report from Bruce Freckleton and myself, dated January 29tH This is requesting approval of 125 building lots on just under 40 acres. The proposed zone is R-8. That zone is the same zone that was approved for the Baldwin Park to the north. That's the one I'm forgetting. The two zones east and west of it are R-4. That zone is in line with the Comprehensive Plan, which shows medium density residential and t he densities p roposed also fall u nder t hat density. The next slide I think is an attempt a t h umor from t he s ecretary, w ho j ust t ook a P owerPoint c lass. M oving o n. The main items I wish to point out are in the additional considerations starting on Page 6. First of all, let me point out -- so that we can try to avoid confusion, we have got three different versions of this plat that you probably have. The first one that was sent around with the initial packets, the one on the screen now, it had two accesses out onto Linder Road. As theywent through meetings with the Ada County Highway District, they were required to shift the location of this road, which was Watersong Drive on this plat, south to align with the entrance to the middle school across the street. Upon moving that, the offset distance was no longer far enough for them to approve this one, so the plat was modified and received in January with this plat. This plat does have a single access out onto Linder Road. It shows the two cul-d-sacs in this location where it had been connected. The staff report that I wrote was based on this plat. The applicant has come forward today with a third plat that he feels addresses the issues in the staff report. I'm going to go though the issues in the staff report. I have not yet had time to review this one and we can ask him to go through these issues and show whether or not those -- they have been addressed with the plat that was brought before us today. The first is block length and there are three blocks in this plat that, actually, are smaller than our minimum block size, which is kind of a nice problem, in my opinion, compared to the -- what we usually see. We -- those minimum block lengths would have to receive a variance, but staff would support that. We feel that it enhances the interconnectivity with those smaller blocks. There are also two blocks, namely -- let's see Block 1 and Block 7, which run through here that exceeds the maximum block length. The staff report asks that High Altitude Way be connected south to this cul-d- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 18 of 106 sac t o b reek u p t his block I ength a nd s tates t hat i f that c onnecion w ere made, staff would support the Variance on the remaining block lengths that exceeded the maximum. I believe that change was made, as you can see, in the plat that was brought forth tonight. Number 2, on Page 7, is the roundabout. The initial plat had the roundabout in this location. In the revised one, it shifted closer to Linder Road. We ask that it be shifted back to the location that was more in line where it was originally shown and they have done that as well, as you can see. Item 3 is the right of way. There are 20 -- a need for 2 3 additional feet of right of way a long L finder R oad for future road widening. However, as you may have noted in the staff report from both me and ACHD, ACHD is not currently able to purchase that right of way. As a condition of annexation, we would request that they be required to plat that future right of way as a separate common lot. I believe that the new plat does accommodate that as well. Item 4 is the Landscape Plan. We requested that we get a plan for this revised plat. There was one brought in this afternoon. It looks like this. I have not reviewed it. It does not have the sidewalks, the gravel shoulder, and things that were requested. Some of those details can be worked out with the detailed Landscape Plan required with Final Plat, but we do need to make sure that the Landscape Plan is in compliance with all city ordinances. The stub drain is a drain that currently courses across the property from its southeast corner up towards the northwest corner. It does drain into the White Drain up here. It is also currently piped. It would have to be relocated to accommodate the subdivision. I'm not sure if it's shown on this newest plat, but the intent is to run it up adjacent to the common lot, adjacent to the right of way to the White Drain. The location of that drain, as shown on the plat that I reviewed, appeared to be within the future right of way. We made a statement that we need to verify the location of that drain is outside the future right of way, so that we are building it in one location today and having to move it again in five years. No easement is also shown on the plat and we need to verify the width of easement that would be required and to whom that easement would go. I believe it was labeled for the Settler's Irrigation District, but I don't believe it actually -- it belongs to them. There is a Mr. Les Vogel that has been in contact with our office and he's in the audience tonight and may be able to address that. Number 6 is emergency access. When the plat was revised to only have one access pointing out onto Linder Road, it now meets a second point for emergency access. We need to verify that the emergency access has been accommodated on the new plat. Number 7 is phasing. This plat that I have reviewed, shows it as a two-phase subdivision. There was indication from the applicant that they desire to do it as a single phase. I believe that phase line has been removed. The Coleman Lateral is shown to be on a narrower common lot surrounding the southwest corner of the subdivision. There is no mention of the ownership and maintenance of that lot. We believe it should be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, with a note to that effect on the plat. We also requested that landscaping be shown, even if it's just grass on the Landscape Plan. That is not yet shown -- still showing a blank. Number 9 on Page 8 is the titling of ditches. This seems like a fairly simple one. They are requesting the White Drain to remain open. Counsel would be the one to act on that and it has been granted up and down the White drain. Item 10 is the calculations table, which appear to be incorrect on the revised plat. We ask that the common area calculation be corrected, as well as the average lot size and anything else that needed to be done. I have not yet had a chance to look at those for the new one that came in today. In addition, on Page 9, I would just point out Items 11 and 12 on Preliminary Plat notes that need to be added or modified, Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 19 of 106 as well as lot dimensions that were missing from the original Preliminary Plat. Those are the issues that needed to be resolved before staff could recommend that this be sent on to Council. All of those show up in the recommendation on Page 11. That recommendation was to continue the h Baring until these items a re addressed. With that, I will stand for any questions and we can hear from the a pplicant on those 10 items. Thank you. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: The comments were very thorough. I remembered somewhere going through this that there was an earlier comment that the White Drain, the project to the west of this, maybe Bridgetower. I forget they are providing a walkway in that area and this does not continue that. Is that desirable to continue that walkway? Siddoway: It is desirable. They do show on the Landscape Plan a path slash gravel access road. It is over a City of Meridian s ewer main easement and they do show connecting to that with one micropath in this location, as well as stubbing down to the existing roadway here. Zaremba: Okay. I didn't have the new landscape -- I have the new plat, but not the new Landscape Plan. Borup: What was the status of that pathway in Bridgetower? Was it also gravel in Bridgetower? Siddoway: I am not sure. I don't believe it was, but it is private, it's not owned by the city, and I, honestly, don't know. I'd have to go back and check the findings on that one. Zaremba: Haven't we in the past asked that they be a firmer substance, pavement or something, so that rollerskates and bicycles can be used? Siddoway: On all city owned pathways we have consistently asked for 10-foot asphalt, yes. Borup: Okay. Is there anything else from the Commission? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Fluke: I would very much. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Darin Fluke, JUB Engineers 250 South Beachwood in Boise. I won't belabor this with a long discussion. I think Steve hit most of the high points. I'll just talk about some of the things that might have been left off. Steve, could we see the Landscape Plan real quickly? One thing that did get left off inadvertently in the rush to make these changes for the hearing was the sidewalk here along Linder Road. That will be placed two feet inside the new right of way, which is this 23 -foot strip. We show that as being grass right now and we will, of course, put the sidewalk in there. That's what ACHD is requiring. That does -- this road is slated to be developed as a five lane minor arterial and with a 96-foot right of way and that will accommodate a detached five -foot Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 20 of 106 sidewalk so we can easily add that in. With regard to the path along the White Drain, the only place we parallel the White Drain with any kind of path is right here. Then, the drain leaves our property at that point, just as my laser pointer has also left the property and so, you know, we don't have a pathway along the White Drain, really. That's the city's access road for the White Trunk line that runs in that 40-foot strip along the top property line there, the north property line. You know, it's our understanding that the city likes the 12-foot gravel path on there. I don't know that they want that paved. Bruce, maybe you could speak to that. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe that pathway is -- isn't it 14 feet existing right now? Fluke: I thought it was 12, but it might be 14. Freckleton: Yes I -- we are in the process of trying to close that project out right now on the installation of the trunk line and the road has been installed -- I'm just kind of going from memory, but I think it is 14 feet. Borup: That's on the whole -- Freckleton: Trunk line the full length of the trunk. Borup: Any comment on --and this appears that the actual White Drain just intersects at their eastern end. Freckleton: It clips right across the corner there, yes. Fluke: Were there to be a pathway that connected it, it would connect in right there and extend to Linder Road on the east. With regard to the White Trunk drain, which does cut across the property there, as a field drain now, it is in a pipe, we have spoken with the Settler's Irrigation District on that. They did indicate that they would like that to go in their easement -- in an easement granted to the Settler's Irrigation District. On the plat we did move that -- we take out drainage water right there - I keep losing this pointer here. We take that drain water about right here and what we have proposed to do is put that in a pipe that comes up here and just dumps into the White Drain. That would only need to be in a 10-foot easement and we can accommodate that with the land that we have there. We have already worked that out with the Settler's Irrigation District. We did make the roadway connection that staff wanted. That did cost us a lot to do that and it also means that we have got another block that doesn't meet the minimum block length of the code, but we will deal with that at the City Council,.) suppose. Other than that, I think we are happy with the layout. I think we addressed all of the stafFs concerns and we'd just ask that you pass this on with a recommendation of approval. Centers: Mr. Chairman, it would have been really helpful if you could refer to Page 11 of the staff report, if you could just go down each bullet item. Fluke: Sure Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 21 of 106 Centers: And you just talked about that last, the -- I can see that's been connected -- andjust address each item. Fluke: Okay so, the connection -- we see that that connects. The separate lot for the future right of way -- maybe we ought to go back to the plat, Steve. Centers: I saw that on the plat. Fluke: Okay so, there is a lot there now where there wasn't before. It's 23 feet in width. That gets ACHD their ultimate right of way of 96 feet. The revised Landscape Plan, it does not include the detached sidewalk, but we can add that in. Centers: You will. Fluke: We have got the landscaping and all the common lots. The stub drain location, again, that's the drain that comes in about right here. We are going to put that in a pipe and an easement to Settler's and run it up to the White Drain. The emergency access will. be out the existing gravel road here, it will come in here, and they can come down here or continue on. That will only be necessary until we are able to make these two connections, which were approved as part of the Bridgetower Preliminary Plat. Centers: And you're showing that on the plat? Fluke: Yes. Yes. We have labeled that and I believe that's that note right there. Centers: Good. Fluke: We did remove the phasing line. The Coleman Lateral landscaping, that is this lot right here. We have added a note, which is this bottom note that says that the lot will be owned by the homeowners association, but that the lot will be maintained by Settler's, which is what they prefer. As far as any landscaping there, they do not wish to have it landscaped, they want to have gravel on that for access. Centers: Okay. Zaremba: That's actually two lots now. Fluke: It is two lots, because there is that stub street right there, so there is a little piece right there. The calculations table has been updated. You will notice that it has 125 lots on there, rather than the 126. Then, we worked out the percentages of the open space on there. We have added the lot dimensions. We had some missing in a couple of areas and we have put those down. I'm not sure what the revised plat note was referring to, the last bullet item. Centers: Steve can address that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Fe6mary 6, 2003 Page 22 of 106 Siddoway: One was to add a note about minimum residential house size and one was to modify the blanket storm drainage easement across the whole subdivision to reference the specific lots and blocks where those storm drains would be. Fluke: Yes. I missed that. I apologize those notes aren't on there, but that's certainly easy enough of to do. Centers: And that was -- very good. Fluke: Thank you. Zaremba: Yes. Thank you for doing it that way. The new plat dated February 6, 2003, is it -- I think you just corrected us. It's no longer 125 building lots and 15 other. Can you tell me what those correct numbers are? Fluke: No it is 125. Zaremba: Okay. Fluke: The previous plat was 126 lots, so we lost one to make that road connection. Zaremba: So 125 is correct? Fluke: Correct. Zaremba: Fifteen other lots or are there more now? Fluke: No. That's correct. Whatever it says on this plat is correct. On the February 6th, plat. Zaremba: I'm just going by what we are -- Fluke: Yes 13 common open spaces. Zaremba: Is that counting the two that will eventually be right of way? Fluke: Those are treated separately in that table, you will see at the bottom, and, yes, it does include those two lots the bottom of that table. Zaremba: I'm just clarifying so you're confirming to me that the current latest request for Preliminary Plat approval is 125 building lots and 15 other lots? Fluke: Thirteen other lots. Zaremba: Thirteen other lots. Okay. Centers: Including the one that's dedicated -- future dedication to the highway department. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng February 6, 2003 Page 23 of 106 Fluke: That's correct. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Commissioner Zaremba brought up that pathway. I wouldn't mind seeing maybe some additional discussion on that. A lot of the comments we have, often times, is a subdivision putting in a pathway and say it doesn't lead anywhere. We always make the statement when the next one comes along it will be continued. I realize we have just a small section here, but don't we have that same issue to deal with? Zaremba: Well, it does connect to Bridgetower on the west end, doesn't it? Borup: Not this subdivision, but -because there is property in between the two. Zaremba: Oh. Borup: But we do have a pathway in Bridgetower and some adjoining property between them. Centers: The one is Bridgetower is private now. I think staff just mentioned that. Isn't it? Siddoway: The Bridgetower pathway is a private pathway. Centers: Correct. Borup: With public access or is it? Centers: It's not maintained by the city. Siddoway: It's not maintained by the city. That's as much as I know. Borup: Right. Zaremba: What surface is it? fs it paved or gravel? Borup: I believe that was proposed - it was before us -- to be a hard surface paved or concrete. Zaremba: I don't remember discussing it, so I would assume it was paved. Otherwise, we would have talked about it. Siddoway: I was not in attendance the night it was. Maybe Jessica would be able to -- could we get their Bridgetower file fairly easily and look that up? Zaremba: Would it be a difficulty to pave it if -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 24 of 106 Fluke: No. Centers: Is it this portion that we just talked about? Fluke: Certainly. I would just make the caveat there that, you know, we need to get Public Works to buy off on that, because it's their easement. They have got their sewer line in there, so we don't want to get in that vice. If they were amenable to that, then, we certainly would be. Borup: And maybe because -- the thing we got different here is such a small section, either paving it or bonding for it or escrowing the money or -- I don't know what the other options would be. That may be easier. Fluke: Well, I mean I think probably it doesn't matter to the client. We will put asphalt on there when they are building the roads, if that's what you want. That's probably the easiest time to do it. It's a small section and it's not a problem to do that, just so long as Public Works says we can. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Public Works would be happy to have asphalt there. It's a much better driving surface for us if we have to have access. My only concern is just width and vehicle weight carrying capacity of the surface. Those are just details that we can work out with the applicant during the plan review process. Borup: It looks like we are probably talking 3 or 400 feet? Is that somewhere in that -- somewhere in that range. It would connect to the -- it would connect to the sidewalk that you would be putting in along Linder? I think that would be the intention. That it would connect to the sidewalk. You just -- we are saying along the drain until it leaves your property. Fluke: Yes. Borup: Yes. Okay. Are there any comments from the Commissioners on that? Does that seem appropriate and consistent with what we have done before? Centers: Yes and the applicant doesn't have a problem with it. Fluke: That's fine. Thanks. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Come forward if you do. DeGeorgio: Good evening, my name is Desiree DeGeorgio. My husband and I, Tom, we own the property that's cut out -- yes. I have concerns and questions regarding our flood irrigation water that runs currently now from -- can I -- it's the water now -- how do you work this? Zaremba: It's just a little button that -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 20D3 Page 25 of 106 DeGeorgio: The water now we get runs -- that we irrigate the acre from, runs up through here. The front comes this way. Then, we get the back irrigation for the pasture comes around back behind and in a cement ditch now, currently, that runs right here. Our concern is getting the water rights that we paid for -- if and when and how that's going to change. Borup: Where does your water access from right now? Where is your access point to your property? DeGeorgio: It comes down along Linder this way. Borup: So, it flows to the south? DeGeorgio: Yes, sir. Yes. Borup: Okay. DeGeorgio: Yes. How much water we will get and how that's going to change, where it's going to come from and also the price of the water. Borup: Okay. Some of that I think we will get some comments from the applicant. By law you need -- you would still have your historical water. The price you pay is determined from the Irrigation District. DeGeorgio: From Settler's? Borup: Yes and I don't know that that would change any. It's -- but that's determined by them. DeGeorgio: One question would be is if they have a flat price per house for their flood irrigation with our land size, will we still be bound into what we currently pay or will it change to what -- Borup: Ithink it's based on how much water you are delivered and I think maybe someone else can answer that better than me. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mrs. DeGeorgio, your property has a certain allocation right now and that would not change. You're not within the boundaries of the subdivision, so modifications that they make are not going to affect you. The chairman is correct, State Code does require that the applicant provide you with your historical flow at its historical delivery points and it also affords you the protection that your drainage water has to be carried off at its historical flows, too -- or historical locations. Modifications that they make, they still need to accommodate you -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 26 of 106 DeGeorgio: For when the water is turned on in the spring through the summer? Borup: Right. DeGeorgio: And we will have access to that regardless. of construction on the subdivision? Freckleton: They will need to work -- they will need to coordinate that whole -- the development at the subdivision through the Settler's Irrigation District and the time line laid out by Settler's. Settler's is going to be reviewing their plans during the approval process and they will be approving them. DeGeorgio: We receive water from the p ump that you talked about a artier and you discussed the price per house. Will that change? That's already paid for through the water rights that we pay for every year. Borup: Are you talking about connecting to their pressurized irrigation? Is that what you're saying you want to do? DeGeorgio: Well, no, I -- that was the option Borup: Oh. DeGeorgio: Not an option, but a possible fix to the situation Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Well, yes, I mean those were just some ideas that were thrown around. I have seen it before where they will try and accommodate an out parcel with their pressurized irrigation system. I'm not saying that that is the proposal in this development, but in a pressurized irrigation system, the Irrigation District allocates the water to the station based on the area of the land. The price that the individual homeowner pays goes to pay for the Irrigation District's maintenance. You get basically two separate bills from the Irrigation District when you're in a pressurized irrigation system like that. One bill you get is for your normal water assessment. You get that bill from them. In that bill it includes -- I'm speaking wrong. You get one bill from the Irrigation District. DeGeorgio: Yes, I do now. Freckleton: It would include -- if you're in a pressurized irrigation system, it includes all of the maintenance costs for that system and that would include power costs, you know, time for the guy to go and check the -- Borup: So, he's saying you would be charged -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Cammissian Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 27 of 106 DeGeorgio: If that's the case, then, our bill is going to change, if what he says -- if they charge us for -- Freckleton: Yes. Borup: That would probably be the case. Freckleton: Yes, it would. Borup: That would be something you would need to decide and maybe work out with developer to see if they would be able to accommodate you and hook you up to that system. DeGeorgio: Okay. Borup: Yes that would be up to them and up to you. Otherwise, if you do not choose to do that, you would have your normal historic delivery of water as you have now. DeGeorgio: But under construction with that subdivision, that's to going change. Borup: No. It will still come in at the same point that you're receiving it now. Zaremba: I think the only difference is they are going to put it in a pipe, instead of being in an open ditch, but by the time it gets to you -- DeGeorgio: Oh, it's not an open ditch now, other than the back part. The front part is underground. Borup: Okay. Then that stays the same. Zaremba: Then that would be that same. Are you the end of that line or does it continue on and serve other people? DeGeorgio: It actually dumps into where the -- right there on that corner and goes this way in that canal. Freckleton: In the Coleman Lateral. Borup: Okay. DeGeorgio: Yes. Well, my concern is how drastic of a change it's going to be and how it's going to affect the water that we get and when to water, because we are on a pump right now and we can't -- there is no way we could pump water enough out of pump to irrigate the whole acre. That's my concern. Borup: Okay. Well, again, you will still have the same water delivery. DeGeorgio: In the same way? Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm(sslon Meeting February 6, 2003 Pags 28 of 106 Borup: Yes. At the same point at whatever you're paying for at this point. DeGeorgio: Okay. Borup: And if you wanted to connect to their pressurized irrigation, then, that would be something you need to work out with the developer. DeGeorgio: Okay so, what you're saying, then, is that we will get the water the same way we are getting it now at the same cost. Borup: Yes. DeGeorgio: That's what I wanted to know. Borup: Okay. Now, there could be -- I mean sometimes there could be some interruption, like if they were moving a pipe or something, but they would -they should be coordinating that with you and let you know if there was going to be anything. DeGeorgio: Sure. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Rohm: I'd like to hear from the applicant on this issue. I'd like to hear him speak specifically to what her request was, if you would. Borup: Before we do that, let's see if there is -- is there anyone else? Come on up. Then maybe we can answer all the questions at one time. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Vogel: My name is Les Vogel and I'm concerned about that white stub they referred to and who is going to maintain that. I understood that he said that Settler's was going to take that over and maintain it is that right? Borup: You're talking about the White Drain on the north of the property? Vogel: Right. That's my concern and if they landscape over that thing and put trees in and the roots get down to it -- Borup: I don't think they will allow that. Okay. We will have them address that so, you're concerned about the White stub. Vogel: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commissian Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 29 of 106 Borup: Is that what you said? Vogel: That goes all the way along Linder there. Okay. There won't be no trees or anything else -- Borup: Oh, you're talking just the drain --the drainpipe. Vogel: Yes. Yes. Borup: Okay. We will have them address that. Vogel: Okay. That's my only concern, who maintains that. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I might be able to answer that question. Borup: Okay. Please. Freckleton: With regards to this going to Settler's, I don't know. At this point in time I believe it is just a users -- a user maintained ditch. Now, if Settler's is going to take over the maintenance of that, I suppose that's fine. On the face of the plat the City of Meridian will require a note that states that the owner of each lot across which passes an irrigation or drainage ditch is responsible for the maintenance thereof, u nless the maintenance responsible has been assumed by an irrigation or Drainage District. That kind of leaves it open. If Settler's wants to take over the maintenance responsibility, then, they will have it. Otherwise, the maintenance responsibility will lie with the owner of the lot that that ditch passes through, be it drainage or irrigation, and that lot is going to be owned by the homeowners association for the subdivision. The maintenance responsibility would fall to them, unless Settler's takes the responsibility. Borup: Does that make sense, Mr. Vogel? Vogel: It makes sense. As long as I don't -- Borup: It would either be the subdivision or ACHD -- or I mean or Settler's. Vogel: So, I don't have to go to 125 houses -- Borup: No. It's all on one lot -- or, in this case, two lots that the homeowners association owns. Vogel: Yes. Okay. They will maintain it. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Borup: Darin, did you want to comment on those two items? Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Darin Fluke with JUB. I'd just confirm that we will, of course, deliver the DeGeorgio's water right where they get it now in the quantities that they receive now. There will be no interruption in that for them, so we will have to work Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 30 of 106 around that, as we do with every plat. As far as the ownership and maintenance of that White Stub Drain, Settler's has indicated to us when we were designing the subdivision that they would maintain that. It sits in a 10-foot easement there along the frontage. We will keep any trees 1Q feet off the center line of that pipe, which is their standard license agreement language for landscaping near their easement, so -- and Bruce is right, if Settler's at the last bit when we are Final Platting just doesn't want to take it, then, the homeowners association would be responsible to maintain it. Either way, it's a better situation than the way the pipe runs right now. It's just a little field drain that I think was installed by a farmer and so we will put it in a right size pipe and run it a shorter route up to the existing White drain. Zaremba: I think the second question on the out parcel was drainage also. I assume that won't be interrupted either. Fluke: That's correct. We are obligated to take it where it leaves right now, so we will accommodate that in a drainage pipe. Borup: Is there anticipated to be any construction during the irrigation season? Fluke: The client's indicating no. Borup: So, there shouldn't even be a momentary -- I mean even a temporary interruption of water. Fluke: Typically, the districts won't allow that and, you know, it would be very temporary if we were to interrupt it. We are obligated to get them that water in the quantity that they get it now at the times that they get it now. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the Commission? Centers: Mr. Chairman, you had a lady out there. Borup: Okay. Come on up, then. We need to get you on the microphone. Scott: I'm Margaret Scott with Stubblefield Development and we own the 15 acres to the south of this parcel. It doesn't go all the way to the southwest corner it's over a little ways. My only question is when I went and talked to Steve at the city, the road that will come down our property was 385 feet from their west property line. Has that changed? Siddoway: I don't think so. Scott: Because I didn't see this version of the plat. Borup: Are you trying to design your property to tie into that? Scott: Well, we are farming it and we have been farming it for years, but we just want to make sure that it's in someplace that will work, if we ever -- Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 31 of 108 Centers: This stub right here? Zaremba: It looks like it's 384, if I add up the back property line that's along there. Scott: That's fine. That's fine. I just didn't want it to be noticeably different. Okay. That's my question. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Commission, we have no one else to testify. Centers: I would move that we close the Public Hearing, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Both items? Centers: Yes. Yes. Both items. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would note for the record, before we take a vote on any item, that previously when we took attendance -- Commission Rohm has joined us since then and is available to vote. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rohm has been here throughout the Public Hearings on Items 8 and 9. Okay. We do have a motion to close the Public Hearing on those two items. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Borup: Motion and a second. Well, I think we need to do them one at a time, don't we? Zaremba: We are closing the hearings. Centers: Yes. I would like to close both Public Hearings, AZ 02-029 and PP 02-030. Borup: Okay. We had a second on that. Rohm: And I will second that. Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: And, Mr. Chairman, I have some questions for staff. Steve, turning to Page 6 where you start with additional considerations at the bottom, I would leave all of Item 1 in. I would line out Number 2 on Page 7. You jump in if you disagree with me. Line out Page 3 -- I mean Item 3 on Page 7. Leave in four leave in five. Line out Number 6, line out Number 7, line out Number 8 and leave in 9. Line out Number 10 and leave in all other site-specific comments. Add Number 14 on Page 9. Pave the short pathway at Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 32 of 106 the north boundary line at the White Drain. Would you agree that they have met all of those that -- Siddoway: Yes, I would. I would just point out that you would probably want to note that those now become -- the ones that you're leaving in, make those -- they are conditions of approval and not just additional considerations. Centers: Right. Right. Oh, yes. You bet. Siddoway: Number 8 that I'm not comfortable with striking is just that there needs to be a note on the plat about who is responsible for maintenance of the -- Centers: They had that, didn't they? A note on the plat correct. Zaremba: It is there. Centers: Then it is met. Siddoway: Thank you. Centers: Right. I would merge those into site-specific comments. Borup: Okay. Centers: For the Preliminary Plat. Siddoway: One more thing. Zaremba: So, then, the question becomes are the remaining notes sufficient that we need to see it again? Centers: Why? Zaremba: That's what I'm wondering. If there is only a couple of things left that they have agreed to label on the plat. Centers: Yes and he addressed the Landscape Plan and he addressed the Settler's, but they just haven't got them done. Zaremba: So, those are minor enough we don't need to see it again. Centers: We would put them into site-specific comments and they would have to have that done before it went to Council. Correct. Siddoway: I would agree. I think that we can send this on. It appears that they are in substantial compliance. There are a few things, like the notes on the plat that can be added. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 8, 2003 Page 33 of 106 Zaremba: And they are minor enough. Siddoway: And we can review those before the -- if we can get those final modifications made and copies to us 10 days before the City Council Hearing. We can -- we can do that. The one thing that Bruce and I were talking about over here was relating to Comment Number 14 that was being added about the pathway. Just a -- Centers: Whatever it is you want. Go ahead. Siddoway: I'm, actually, going to turn that to Bruce. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my only concern with that one is I'd just like for it to be worded such that it references it as a duel use pathway. It's going to be our sewer access road, but it will also double as a pathway. Vehicle weight carry capacity and width need to be approved by the Public Works Department. Centers: 1 got it. Borup: And that's also the emergency access Freckleton: Correct and if that's going to be used as an emergency access, it probably should be signed as the temporary emergency access. Borup: That's for the Fire Department so they will know? Who is supposed to read the sign? Okay. Freckleton: Typically, that's something that the Fire Department has required in the past. Borup: Okay. Centers: Okay. Anybody have anything else? Zaremba: No. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we recommend approval for Item 8 on the agenda, AZ 02-029, request for annexation and zoning of 39.92 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the p roposed Watersong Estates by Howell-Murdoch Development, Corp., northwest comer of North Linder Road and West Ustick Road, including all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng February 6, 2003 Page 34 of 106 Centers: Moving on I would recommend approval on Item 9, PP 02-030, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 125 building lots and 13 other lots on 39.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Watersong Estates by Howell-Murdoch Development Corp. Northwest corner of North Linder Road and W est Ustick Road, meaning the plat dated February 6, 2003, including all staff comments and as amended. Under additional considerations on Page 6, Item 1 that would be merged to the site- specific comments. Page 7, Item 4, would be merged to site-specific comments. Item 5 merge to site-specific comments. Item Number 9 merge to site-specific comments. Then, all other comments related to the Preliminary Plat dated February 6, 2003 included. Additionally, on Page 9, Item 14 would be added pave the short pathway at the north boundary at the White Drain, which would be a dual use slash Public Works access. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 1d. Public Hearing: CUP 02-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to include adding a new 4 classroom seminary to back of existing site in an R-8 zone for Mountain View Senior Seminary by Lystrup/Jensen Architects -south of East Overland Road and east of South Locust Grove Road: Borup: Item Number t0 Public Hearing CUP 02-047, requestfor a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to include adding a new four classroom seminary to the back of an existing site already zoned for Mountain View Senior Seminary. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Hi I'm Wendy Kirkpatrick, new planner here with the City of Meridian. Borup: Okay. Welcome. Kirkpatrick: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a four classroom seminary located at -- Borup: Can everyone hear okay? Maybe just a little bit -- Kirkpatrick: Then I can't read my report. The subject property is located at the Overland and Locust Grove LDS church. It's adjacent to the Mountain View High School that is being constructed now. The applicant is Lystrup/Jensen Architects. The property owner is the LDS church. The seminary building will consist of -- will be 5,476 square feet in size and it will contain four classrooms. The existing parking lot will be increased by 65 spaces. This is being permitted as a Planned Development. That's why it's here this evening. Oh and, actually, the only reason this is here at the hearing this evening is because a single lot is going to be -- when the seminary is constructed will have two buildings and that requires them to come to hearing as a Planned