Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParamount prior to council.CommMEMORANDUM Date: May 15, 2003 To: Mike Wardle Fm: Bruce Freckleton David McKinnon Re: The revised Paramount Subdivision preliminary plat Dear Mr. Wardle, We have had the opportunity to review the submitted revised preliminary plat and have found that a majority of the revisions (conditions of approval) required by the Planning and Zoning Commission have been made to the revised plat. However the following revisions have not been made to the plat as required by the Commission: 5. Please revise the preliminary plat map to show how all existing irrigation/drainage ditches are to be treated. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can’t be obtained, plans will be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. A revised plat shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council meeting for this project. 11. Revise the plat notes as follows: •Add a note to the plat requiring any re-subdivision of this plat to be in compliance with the most recently approved subdivision standards of the City of Meridian. •Add a note to the plat that restricts fencing adjacent to the pathways within the subdivision to no greater than four feet in height if solid sight- obscuring material is used for fence construction, with the allowance of two (2) feet of lattice work to be permitted on top of the solid fence. • Add a note to the plat that states the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the pressurized irrigation system within the development. •Add a note to the plat regarding the ownership and maintenance of the common lots within the subdivision. •Add a note to the plat regarding the Right to Farm Act The missing plat notes do not overly concern us, as long as they are included on the final plat. The treatment of the waterways (drainage/irrigation) is major concern. We recognize the fact that you have graphically depicted the current locations and the proposed relocations of all of the waterways on the revised plat, however there is no indication of the width of the easements associated with the existing and relocated ditches. The width of the easements and the ability to encroach into the easements with landscaping, fences and accessory buildings needs to be addressed. For example, the landscaping adjacent to the continuous multi-use pathway system may be dramatically reduced if trees are not allowed to be within an easement for the relocated drain that runs adjacent to a majority of the length of the pathway. The building lots in the southwest portion of the subdivision may need to be modified so that a common lot (or an un-encroachable easement) can be included across the back of the lot to provide access to the irrigation clean out boxes and to the tiled lateral. We would like the opportunity to review the easement widths to determine how they will affect the preliminary plat prior to approval. In addition above noted concerns, Lot 57 Block 3 is still included as part of the plat although it was required to be eliminated from the plat per the annexation recommendation. We understand that you wish to argue the elimination of this lot to the City Council, nevertheless the Commission asked for this lot to be removed and it should not be on the revised plat per their request. Finally, we wish to address the issue of City of Meridian requiring a permanent easement and temporary construction easement to be dedicated though the project to Meridian Road prior to submission of the final plat for phase one of the subdivision. The applicant may make the argument that the property owners that have given them the options do not want the sanitary sewer trunk line built across their property until such time as the property is developed. More than likely their concern is that they would like to continue to farm the land up to the time the development takes in their land, and that if the sewer were built ahead of the development, their ability to farm their land will be hampered. These concerns can be addressed in the language of the easements. It is our belief that the properties up-stream of the Paramount project will develop as rapidly as the properties within the White Drain service area. Basis of staff’s position:  By not ensuring that easements are completely dedicated through a project, we grant the developer control over the progressive time line for the City’s sanitary sewer system. In other words, properties up-stream from the Paramount project would be at the mercy of this developer’s time line, and have to wait for the sewer to be built through the project to the point where they can gain access.  We would also be closer to being able to de-commission the Vienna Woods lift station. Negative downsides of not having easement: o Up-stream properties and the city would have to wait on this developer’s schedule for the sewer to get to them. o Up-stream property owners or developers, will approaching the City with proposals to install sanitary sewer lift stations, to provide temporary service into an adjacent drainage area, until such time that they can connect to the proper sewer system. This creates a host of problems including; taking up capacity that is intended for other properties within the proper drainage area; extensive evaluation of lift station proposals (time); setting upstream sewer design inverts so that we have to “connect the dots” later; and maintenance. o Unfair market advantage is granted to the developer since he would be in control of the development time line, and the progression of the sanitary sewer trunk. Positive Upside of having easement: o Up-stream properties are not locked out of sewer service. By having easements in place, up-stream properties have the option of constructing the sewer system to their properties. o The City does not have to contend with more sanitary sewer lift stations, to provide temporary service into an adjacent drainage area. o By not having temporary lift stations, the full design capacity of the sanitary sewer trunk line is available to the proper drainage area. o Unfair market advantage is eliminated.