Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 18, 2004 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council Meeting May 18, 2004 Pg. 28 of 39 Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 -- - commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is the applicant here on Items 10 and 11? Okay. Well, I will -- I will get to you in just a moment. Since the applicant is here tonight, I will go ahead and start the Public Hearing, open Items 10 and 11, for Southstone Subdivision. I'll start with staff comments. Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is also kind of a five acre in-fill property. As you can see, the white property that's in the midst of the Sutherland Farms Subdivision, that was a planned unit development as it was approved. The property has access onto Eagle Road currently. This portion of Eagle Road is not a highway, just to remain you, it's just an arterial roadway. I wanted to provide you with the proposed preliminary plat as it was originally approved for Sutherland Farms. The area -- the parcel in question that we are talking about today is right here. As you will notice, the collector road comes in just south of the subject property and, then, there is light office to the north of it and light office to the east of it and light office to the south of it. I do want to let you know that there is currently an application to replat or do a new preliminary plat on this location here. It would make it all residential, instead of -- I'm sorry. It goes over further. It goes all the way over to there. It would take out the office component. The Southstone Subdivision -- getting back to that one. Sorry to confuse the matter with Sutherland there, but the Southstone Subdivision is proposing eight commercial building lots on just a little over three acres and they are proposing L-O zoning. The lots range in size from about 6,600 square feet to close to an acre, 32,000 square feet, and these would accommodate a variety of building lots. They are primarily shown as the building pads for the lots that goes out to the street. This application does come forward with a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant's representative Dave McKinnon did testify in favor of the application and no members of the public testified against it. The Commission did modify one condition to require across-access agreement with the property to the north and as I mentioned before, that's also proposed as office. That was their use exception within the planned development. So, even though it's zoned R-4, it will be zone R-4, it is proposed for light office uses. And the Commission also required that they move their access a little bit further to the north, so that they could share an access and they have done that. This is a modified preliminary plat. And staff had had a requirement for a shared parking agreement. It was really just intended to be the cross-access agreement. They just misused the term, so that was removed. And here is -- here is where it gets tricky. When the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Meridian City Council Meeting May 18, 2004 Pg. 29 of 39 approval, they anticipated that the consistency matrix for the Comprehensive Plan that they had recommended approval of would be approved by City Council. Mr. Rountree -- or, Councilmember Rountree, I have to say that during the comp -- the consistency matrix hearing you asked me a specific question, you said does this involve a policy change and at the time I said no and there was one policy change and the policy change was to allow light office for residential properties that were on arterial roads that were less than three acres in size to request a light office zoning, recognizing that some of these larger properties do buffer or can be used to buffer some residential properties when they are on an arterial. So, that was the one -- not blatant -- or, let's see, not specific -- I don't know what I want to say. Rountree: Didn't quite tell the truth. Powell: I didn't mean to do that. I got out here and the next day I thought, oh, no, now what. So, I did want to apologize for that. The others were much clearer. But there are a few things for us to consider and so I wanted to -- I can raise those with you. These come out of the Comp Plan and this is just the general description of the Comp Plan, that it's an official policy guide and that in a general way it reflects how the community may be developed. There is also a section where it talks about how the land use map depicts desired future land use categories and their location within the impact areas. There is -- the depiction, even though we have it property by property, is conceptual. And we have talked in the past about kind of pushing lines and nudging lines a little bit when you have adjacent zoning that is light office. Well, in this case it's not the adjacent zoning, because it was done through a PD and they didn't have -- at that time staff had them keep the R-4 zoning. Lately, I have been trying to get the correct zoning on these use exceptions, so that these issues aren't -- don't come up as often. So, here is a case where this property, as Sutherland Farms stands right now, is completely surrounded by L-0 uses or light office uses, so there are also two Comprehensive Plan policies that kind of talk about this in a general way. Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors in such a way as to compliment with adjoining residential areas. And, then, apply transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses. So, again, these are -- there are a couple things for us to consider -- for you to consider tonight that would allow this to go through. If you don't feel comfortable with this, then, we probably need to add a requirement -- or, I'm sorry, you may want to consider adding a requirement that they do get a Comprehensive Plan map change. Those would seem to be the options. Staff is still recommending this, it does make sense in this case, and I think that there is a little bit there for you to consider tonight. With that, I will end staffs presentation. De Weerd: Well, Anna, as I stated in the director's meeting, item number two is not a problem with Council. Is it? The exercise we had with Espiron. Powell: Oh, yeah. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council Meeting May 18, 2004 Pg. 30 of 39 Wardle: Madam Mayor. One of the questions I have, Anna, is in the minutes from the April 15th meeting, on page three, I believe it's Wendy Kirkpatrick; is that correct? Powell: Yes, sir. Wardle: States: I did want to point out with the consistency matrix not having been approved, that this applicant is, essentially, following the matrix through the process. If the matrix is not approved by Council, this application will lose its ability and it would die, essentially. Is that -- I mean -- and, then, it goes on to say: So, just keep that in mind, but the director's determination that it was okay for this to follow the matrix through the process. So, I understand the exercise you just took us through about L-O and all those things. My question is, since I'm reading this in the minutes of Planning and Zoning, if we were to consider approving this project, we would be, essentially, outside the bounds of our Comprehensive Plan; is that correct? Powell: Not necessarily, I mean that's -- that's why I brought up these issues about the guide and the -- that it's conceptual approval. We have talked about extending these. Now, there is not aresident -- there is not an office component on the Comp Plan next to it. It's a test for you all tonight to see how -- I suppose how we want to treat this. One clear option is to just require them to do a map amendment. The other is to, I suppose, revive the Comp Plan matrix or change the text to allow this sort of thing, leave the matrix out, but do a modification to the text to recognize some of these properties. We do -- most of the support we had going into the matrix was for light office uses on limited size properties, three to five acres or less, where they are dealing with kind of development coming in around them and not quite sure what to do with their property. De Weerd: So, essentially, this is not -- it is not consistent with the Comp Plan Powell: The Comprehensive Plan shows medium density residential. De Weerd: So, that answer was -- Powell: Depending on how you want to interpret -- De Weerd: Boy, you are a politician. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Then, just afollow-up question, Anna. Since we didn't approve the matrix and since this body works on precedent, were we to approve this project, essentially, we would be setting a precedent for light office in residential uses. Powell: Yes, sir. Meridian City Council Meeting May 18, 2004 Pg. 31 of 39 Wardle: Okay. De Weerd: Not an answer to my question. Nary: Cross-examination. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please raise your right hand. Hobbs: I was in the swearing in earlier. De Weerd: Oh, you were? Hobbs: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Well, please, state your name and address. Hobbs: My name is Chris Hobbs. I'm at 1412 South Bender in Boise. De Weerd: Thank you Hobbs: And I was asked to stand in for Dave McKinnon this evening. He had a conflict with another meeting in -- for another city. He was going to try and get down here, but I was asked to stand in if he couldn't make it. We agree with the stafFs recommendation that the approved -- especially given that the properties to the north and the south are zoned for commercial uses and also that access to the Eagle Road makes it an excellent commercial property. It would be a better use than, really, as a residential property and it just makes more sense, given the other uses next to it currently, that it be commercial property. So, we ask for your recommendation. If you have any questions I can try to answer them. De Weerd: Do you have any questions, Council? Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I guess just a -- more of a comment in the sense that I'm not really commenting on the application or for the layout of the plat or any of those things, we are really talking about a policy change and so from the applicant's point of view my comments are more directed towards the general policy, rather than this specific individual project. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you. We are in a dilemma Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meddian City Council Meeting May 18, 2004 Pg. 32 of 39 Nary: Following up on Council Member Wardle's cross-examination, it appears to me, Anna, that what we have got is you have found a couple of policies that might be -- fit to approve the project. I think what we are all either hearing or saying or what was even discussed at Planning and Zoning was that it makes sense to allow, essentially, a mixed use type of project along an arterial like this, having both the residential and these buffer zones and all those things, but we just don't have, really, language to -- I'm just afraid that it sounds like we could be approving something that we might be sorry for later, because the precedent that we would be setting would be something we would be uncomfortable for and, as we heard in the prior testimony, people really pay attention to us and what we do once and how we don't do it again or that we be consistent and that's, I guess, what my fear is is although I think those policies are pretty good, it seems like a stretch and I guess I don't know another --abetter way to say that. It seems like a little bit of a stretch and there is better ways to accomplish this project, whether it's through a text change -- I recognize a map change is much more complicated, but it seems like a text change that's a little bit better with a subsequent map change would make more sense. But, you know, we are sort of relying on your expertise in telling us that we are not going to be sorry that we just chose to follow those couple of policies that you found and that later on we are not going to have somebody say, well, we want to change ours, too, and we don't need to change the book. Am I reading that correctly? Powell: Yes. And I have felt more comfortable with the previous ones where we nudged, because we had an existing zoning there that you could say you were conceptually applying with. I don't know if you remember Office Jet Subdivision, but right across from it there was office property right across the street. Just for the more holistic discussion, it really raises the question -- and I wasn't here when Packard went through, but this problem was really created when Packard went through, because there is no way that it would ever have been appropriate to put residential on this once Packard Estates was approved the way it was approved. So, probably we need to be sensitive as staff to start looking at some of these issues as these use exceptions come through on the planned developments. The intent, I think, of -- in the 1970s when planned developments allowed use exceptions was that those use exceptions would be internal to the property arid used by those folks that were on the property. Here, they are catering to the edge of the property and have affected the surrounding land uses a little bit, so, you know, if you're doing a use exception, should they come back and amend the Comp Plan map, I mean that's another question or -- because it kind of affects other people around them once they do that. So, it's kind of -- this one has brought up a number of issues. And that was just a discussion. I think I answered your question before I launched into the discussion. Sorry. Nary: Madam Mayoi'? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I mean it seems like we are somewhat on a dilemma here. I guess for me I don't know that we really have very solid footing to approve this project, because there is Meridian City Counal Meeting May 18, 2004 Pg. 33 of 39 some inconsistency. It makes sense. It's a reasonable project and it's reasonable along an arterial to have what they are proposing, but I guess the precedent to me people is -- is exactly what's happened here. A project comes in like this and later on we simply change it -- we just change it around and, again, we have never changed the map, we have never changed the text to really fit that, we didn't with the PUD and now all of a sudden we are kind of stuck. I don't know whether it's better to continue this and fix the Comprehensive Plan in the interim or simply deny this and make these folks start over, which I don't necessarily like either. Powell: I feel somewhat responsible in that we didn't talk to you more about the Comprehensive Plan matrix that this project was relying on, so in -- I would prefer that you direct staff to -- what I think I'm hearing is do a text amendment for the Comprehensive Plan to discuss just this one policy change, get that done, and table this application, because I don't think it is the fault of the applicants or that another redesign or use would be necessarily appropriate. I do kind of think that this is a little bit of staffs -- we could have done better with the matrix in talking to you all and recognizing policy changes and garnering support and all those things, so I would feel more comfortable with that option. De Weerd: Does the applicant have any comment? If you do, you can come and say it into the record. Please state your name for the record. Hobbs: Chris Hobbs. De Weerd: Thank you Hobbs: Admittedly, I don't have a lot of experience yet with the exact application of the Comprehensive Plan and I don't know -- my understanding what of a Comprehensive Plan was that it was the plan and that the actual zoning was the actual regulation that applied and I don't understand exactly how that is set up with the City of Meridian, but given your plan -- it's always okay to change your plan if you find later that it makes sense to change it. So, certainly, like you say, it makes sense for this to be commercial property. Does that make sense? De Weerd: I guess right now our Comprehensive Plan does not support this and a land use amendment would be a lot lengthier than a text amendment and so -- and that's what staff is suggesting, that they look at this particular use or allowing it in text and at some point clean it up with -- Powell: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I might frame the question for the applicant a little better. The question tonight is whether or not to just table it for a length of time or to deny it. The only advantage to denial would be if your -- your client had an out clause with being denied, so that he could disinvest himself of the property if that's what he wants to do at this time. Otherwise, it's probably in your interest to just let us table it. Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting May 18, 2004 Pg. 34 of 39 De Weerd: I guess, Council, maybe we should continue it until next week and the applicant can have a chance to talk that through and that decision can be made next week. Then, the applicant can deal with staff and maybe give you an idea of the direction they would like to go. Powell: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: That being said, Madam Mayor, I move that we close the public hearings -- Bird: No. No. Wardle: Oh. Bird: Continue it. Wardle: I'm sorry. Continue the public hearings on Items 10 and 11 to next Tuesday. Bird: May 25th. Wardle: May 25th. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items 10 and 11 to May 25th, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: De Weerd: Item 15 is the water, sewer or trash delinquency. This is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to apre-termination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 18th, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this city that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Your service will be discontinued on May 19, 2004, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? Hearing none, they are hereby informed that they may appeal and have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $17,938.82. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird.