Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 26, 2005 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council July 26, 2005 Page 25 of 71 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Okay. Mr. Bird? Bird: It isn't even late yet. Madam Bird. De Weerd: Madam Mayor. Bird: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve V AR 05-011 with staff comments. Donnell: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 15. Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, aye; Donnell, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Item 17: Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 05-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 28.65 acres from RUT to R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. - north of West Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road: Public Hearing: CUP 05-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family / clubhouse / office / daycare development with no minimum street frontage and multiple buildings on a single lot on 28.65 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. - north of West Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 1 multi-family residential building lot and 1 commercial office lot on 28.6 acres in proposed R-15 & L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by Conger Management Group - west of Ten Mile Road and north of West Franklin Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 16 is Public Hearing AZ 05-016. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, did you want to also open the Public Hearing for -- ~.. De Weerd: I sure do. On Items 17 and 18, PP 05-024 and CUP 05-023. I had it on my other agenda. I'm sorry. The male part of me forgot. .~ (End of side one. Tape one.) Bird: No. Meridian City Council July 26, 2005 Page 26 of 71 Rountree: We have that on record now. Canning: It's going to be a long night, isn't it? Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Silver Oaks project. It's located on the north side of Franklin Road and, then, west of Ten Mile. You will see another application tonight that will be just immediately to the east. So, that will take us out to Ten Mile. It has very limited frontage on Franklin Road as you see. The request that is before you is for annexation and zoning, conditional use, and for a planned development and preliminary plat approval. The annexation and zoning is for 28.65 acres to R-15 and L-O and the R-15 would be generally in this northern ~- there is a little public street here toward the south end of the property. The L-O would be in the southern portion. The R-15 would be the northern portion. This little inset goes right there. For the Conditional Use Permit is a request to allow 77 multi-family structures. So, that's a total of 308 individual units or dwelling units. The amenities for the multi-family units include a clubhouse and a pool, a court area and a fitness center and the landscape plan as we go through there is a little better, you can see the portion of the land, the court area, and the clubhouse. There is a fair amount of open space on the property. The road curves around rather than intersecting at right angles, so it creates a nice flowing pattern for the open space. It's a little hard to tell, because I had to break it up to get it in the slides. But you can see it there. I will go with the front one a little bit. The road pattern comes like this, loops around, comes back around this way, and, then, down and connects with the public street. And there is a little one that goes through here, too. So, the lighter areas are all the open space areas. There is also a proposed pathway system through the park and you can see that connected in various spots. On the remainder of the site, the applicant is proposing five nonresidential uses. One would be for a day care and, then, four. There is the day care and, then, four other buildings. The applicant at this time has requested that all four of these buildings be allowed on a single lot. All the multi-family is one lot and all the office or nonresidential is on another lot. So, it's only a two-lot subdivision. They have indicated that their intent is to come back through with condominium plats for individual ownership, rather than a lotted plat. And, then, the planned development was needed for the frontage requirements for the L-O buildings and as well as for the multi-family. The gross residential density of that portion above the public street is 12.62 units per acre. This is designated as high density residential on the Comprehensive Plan, so it is within that designation. The proposed square footage for the nonresidential uses is 15,080. And, then, again, the number of commercial buildings -- and commercial being not single family residential, those used for commerce, I suppose, is the four office, the one day care, and, then, the 77 structures. Just to note that there is a revised preliminary plat and site plan of June 22nd, '05. And I do have some elevations. These are the multi~family units on the top and, then, the two story structures of the multi-family and the single story structures of the office. This is the plat. How exciting is that. Sorry. This is the one and two lots there. Okay. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval with conditions and that was at their June 16th, 2005, hearing. There was quite a bit of discussion. So, I have got quite a bit to read to you now. Most of this was in your summary sheet, so I will go over it briefly. But the discussion was there was discussion Meridian City Council July 26, 2005 Page 27 of 71 on whether there should be a private street or a public street. They have changed that to a public street and submitted a revised plan. They also discussed the vehicular circulation with the day care. There is the day care. And cross-access from the church site and the storage site to the private road system. Go to the overall one. Right now the public road comes up to about here and, then, heads west. Another private road continues up and connects with the south end of the storage property. This is the storage property. So, it does provide an access to the rear portion of that storage property. And there is a cross-access provision with the church, which is later on in the agenda, but that's the property to the east. There was also discussion about the addressing of the units. As well as parking and landscaping and whether they would be leased or whether they would be a condominium plat. And, then, also pedestrian accessibility from the common area to the multi-family units. The overall traffic circulation for the mid block on Franklin Road and, then, the Kennedy Lateral status and feasibility of bridging the public road to the west. And that's where that public street comes in. Here it is. This is the whole -- the landscaping plan doesn't reflect the public street now, so I had better go up. Where this public street comes through it does stub. I did want to point out that ACHD did not make it a condition of approval, but there is a specific note to the city, and they state that the applicant, if the city wants them to make this a public street, which the Planning and Zoning Commission did, then, this -- then, the applicant should construct a stub to the Kennedy Lateral and should road trust for one half the cost of the bridge to cross the lateral. And staff does recommend that the City Council make this a condition of approval, because it's not listed as a condition right now in ACHD, it's just a note to the city. The Commission did make several minor changes to the staff report regarding unnecessary conditions. A lot of them are related to revising the site plan. And, then, clarification of landscaping. Also Public Works asked for clarification on the development agreement conditions that the applicant agreed to pay for all sewer, main line extensions to the property, in addition to serve extensions on the property. And that because there is not sewer to the site currently, there is sewer to the north that is expected and I believe is expected to come down Ten Mile as well. And I will let Len answer those questions if you need some answers. We did receive a new layout with the public street, the one that is on before you tonight. And the revised layout also addressed the fire department concerns for accessing the building in the northwest corner of the site right at this little tinny one. The roads do converge up there and they improved the access. So, again, the major outstanding issue before Council is that one that I noted about road trusting for half the bridge. Otherwise, I think staff and the applicant and the Planning and Zoning Commission were able to come up with conditions of approval that addressed almost everyone's concerns. And I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Any questions for staff? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Any comments from the fire department or police department? No? Meridian City Council July 26, 2005 Page 28 of 71 Canning: Madam Mayor, I would add. I think if you had an opportunity to read the staff report or the memo that I did for the Unified Development Code at all, I think this is likely to be one of those developments where the fire department would take -- make use of that ability for them to require a private street on existing developments for the purpose of addressing. I think this is exactly the kind of situation where they would like to have some sort of private street naming ability, so that they can locate these units more effectively. De Weerd: The fire department is concurring with that statement. Okay. Anything further? Is the applicant here? Please state your name and address. McKinnon: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Dave McKinnon. 735 South Crosstimber. If I have learned anything addressing you guys in the last few years is that keep it short and sweet. We have read the staff report and we are in agreement with it. All the comments that Anna just made we are in agreement with those and we are more than happy to add that condition of approval stating that we would trust for half of the bridge across the Kennedy Lateral and provided a revised site plan that shows that we would bring the public street right to that point and stub out. And the final comment that Councilman Rountree agreed to with the fire department with consensus among, for the private street and adding some naming there so you can address it more correctly. We have no problem with that. And we are in agreement with that. And we would ask for your support and your approval tonight. " ~.f f:'f \ De Weerd: Wow. That's new. A question for you? McKinnon: Okay. De Weerd: This is prime railroad property with railroad in the back. And certainly I know this conforms to our Comp Plan, but as you know being city staff before, comp plans, there are reasons to change them. And they are not changed in a very timely form. We have a prime freight corridor with that railroad. And I guess my question to you would be, I understand the mixed use and that sort of thing and that the city is starting to shift it's thinking about having residential up against the rail corridor. Why did you make that whole piece -- well, most -- the large majority of that piece all residential? McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you make some great comments there. You have your Comp Plan and sometimes it's easier to not fight against the Comp Plan and just to go straight with that. The Comp Plan shows this entire area as multi-family. So, that's the direction we went with this is because the Comprehensive Plan directs us to do that. There is a large amount of industrial land further to the west of this project. I'm looking at it on your Comp Plan right now. The large amount of it further to the west in addition to that on the north side of this project. This is all single family along the north. And, then, this triangular shaped piece below, this is also shown as multi-family. Part of the reason the multi-family I believe is located here is we have the Ten Mile interchange that's happening and we are going to have a large amount of Meridian City Council July 26. 2005 Page 29 of 71 service industry at the retail that's going to be generated in this area. It's all in your Comprehensive Plan. It's either commercial or mixed use regional, which means you're going to have a lot of service, industrial, retail. People that work in those industries need to have a place to live. They typically can't afford to live in the single-family rental units. They are a great location for that. So, rather than having a whole bunch of people have to drive to this location like they have to do to Wal-Mart and other such, like St. Luke's, they are providing housing near the service industry. That's another good reason to have that. Immediately to the west of this, this is all zoned as industrial -- not zoned by designated as industrial on your comprehensive map, because I think it's important actually to have this diversity of housing and to have some multi-family housing, it's affordable housing for those people that could be in the service industry. De Weerd: Well, I'm not disagreeing that a mixture is good, but that is, again, prime railroad property and that freight is an important ingredient to the business community. Council just approved a budget request for next year to study this area and see how it connects and what works best for it. And I admit since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, Councilman Bird and I have had the opportunity to travel that rail corridor with Idaho Northern, who is the leaseholder to that corridor, and it is an important ingredient to the health and vitality of our city. And this is one area that does need to be visited. Another component of riding that rail corridor was seeing residential backed clear up to that -- that rail corridor. I might say that some of the decisions we made to put residential up there seem -- especially when we saw what happened along there and the burning of the fence was quite compelling, gave reason to think, yeah, maybe this isn't the best place for residential up so close. Now, should it be connected because of a future public transportation? Yeah. It should. But should it be a butted to the rail corridor, I think this Council needs to reconsider that and that's what we hope to accomplish in that Ten Mile area plan. That we will be doing this spring or next fall or whenever it's going to happen. So, I guess that is what our Comprehensive Plan showed that those are living documents and they do change. And, unfortunately, when you grow as fast as we have grown, those changes don't change as quickly as they probably should or could. And that's my statement along with the question of why you put residential up against rail corridors. So, Council, do you have any questions for Dave? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: No questions. McKinnon: Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. McKinon: Thank you. Meridian City Council July 26, 2005 Page 30 of71 De Weerd: Is there further testimony on this application? Okay. If there is no further testimony on this application. do you have any final comment? Okay. Council, do you have any final questions? Bird: I have none. Donnell: I do. De Weerd: Okay. Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: Madam Mayor, I do. Dave, so you really think you can rent those back there with the railroad going through? McKinnon: Sure. Donnell: Sure? McKinnon: Sure. We wouldn't do it otherwise. Donnell: And considering the fact that I have a 90-year-old mother-in-law who lives on the other side of the railroad tracks in a big apartment complex, they haven't had any problem renting it either. I'm not quite sure, Mayor, what your concerns are about. Were you talking about fire or something going to -- did I fall asleep there for a second or something? De Weerd: There was a fire. We were traveling on the rail corridor and there was some kids being very creative burning the fence. Donnell: Oh, I remember that. Which is not unlike when I was traveling along Chinden Boulevard and saw a fire in -- a bush set on fire by the apartments that are right there at -- before you head up the hill toward HP. Kids had set that on fire as well. And it just about took the building down. So, I mean there is going to be those kinds of issues wherever there happens to be kids. So, I'm not quite sure what we are trying to protect there, unless we think that those are going to end up being not very well taken care of, not well maintained, that no one will rent them back there because the train goes by and keeps them awake at night or whatever. I'm not quite sure what we are trying to protect. So, maybe it's not -- De Weerd: Yeah. That's not a question for Mr. McKinnon. Donnell: No. De Weerd: I guess what we are trying to protect is the rail corridor and Anna might tell you that we get a number of inquiries on economic development. And 80 percent of those are industrial that want rail access. That rail corridor is quickly being swallowed up and developed. And we have one opportunity. And you -- we also found that there Meridian City Council July 26, 2005 Page 31 of 71 is a way that you can transition from that rail corridor, which often is noisy and, yeah, they choose to move on it, but it doesn't mean because they move next to a source of noise that they accept that. We have seen that time and time again. I guess the thought is now is looking at preserving it and giving it an opportunity to not only be a source for our public transportation, but also a source for moving commerce and making sure that that corridor is healthy in both regards. And I don't know if a healthy public transportation corridor means that you have housing backed up against it you certainly want to contact people to it, but that doesn't mean they have to live on top of it. And so my point is only that that land is valuable to freight and there is other opportunities to put apartments and higher density living mixed in with those without giving up some prime freight land. And, yeah, this does match our Comprehensive Plan. But does that make it something that -- that shouldn't be considered for another use. No, I don't think so. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, just a comment to your comments as far as industrial versus residential. And it appears to me that we are really talking about two separate worlds. I know that some of the valley initiatives are looking towards a mass transit system located along the rail corridor certainly a number of years out. But I -- as I recall, one of the key components to that is having residential within accessible distances for people to be able to use that system and I know that that was one of the key components to making that work. De Weerd: And that's correct, Mr. Wardle. But it doesn't mean they have to be right on top of it. Wardle: My second question would be how viable an industrial corridor or where is the spur located, all of those questions in relation to a light rail system or mass transit system and those are certainly things that were down the road. De Weerd: Well, Mr. Wardle, spurs can be added anyplace and that is one of the things that we did learn along that trip is they can be put in at any point on that rail -- on that rail line as it is today. And, again, it was a very educational experience going down that rail corridor and actually experiencing it and seeing it through their eyes on the freight potential. Now, Idaho Northern has also master planned in the dual use with public transportation. And, yes, you need to have your transit or your depot spots on the rail corridor, but don't have to have your house upon it. You do need connectivity through path systems, that they can ride there by bike or inter mobile type of access, but you don't have to live directly on the rail corridor to do that. And those are lessons learned since we put together the Comp Plan. Any further questions or -~ Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Any final remarks, Dave? McKinnon: No. Thanks for your time. Appreciate the comments. Meridian City Council July 26, 2005 Page 32 of 71 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council? Rountree: Hearing no further testimony, I move that we close the public hearings on Items 16, 17 and 18. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to close the public hearings from Items 16 through 18. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Any discussion or do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a couple comments. And I have said them before. I don't know that Meridian is in such a situation that we have to hurry into these kinds of things. This particular concept seems to me fraught with bringing it back more and more times to Planning and Zoning and Council with a two lot subdivision with 70 some units on it. That bothers me. We don't have any subdivision lots per se for these units. I can -- we have had these discussions about subdivisions coming back before wanting to identify lots. I have heard that there was some additional consideration that that would -- they would come back and identify lots for condominium sales. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable annexing under those concepts. And once annexed it's difficult for the city to -- control is not the word. Direct what does or does not occur there. I'm not convinced that this concept is the right concept for that piece of future Meridian and probably would vote against a motion to approve. De Weerd: Okay. We don't have a motion. Do we have any further discussion? Or would you consider a motion? Donnell: Madam Mayor? ":I ~ De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: I don't believe I'm going to make a motion, but I am going to make a statement and that is while your remarks are well taken and we talk about a fluid Comprehensive Plan, our Public Works Department, the folks that are doing -- working with the developers, follow that Comp Plan and I don't know how many times I have said to my constituents when they have complained about development that if, in fact, it's included in the Comp Plan, then, that generally is the way things will happen and I guess I have learned on -- being on the Council that that doesn't necessarily have to be the way it is, but, then, I think our Public Works Department needs to clearly understand the Meridian City Council July 26, 2005 Page 33 of 71 philosophy of the Mayor and the Council, so that they can work with developers, so that they don't bring requests forward to us when they know that it probably is not going to be something that we can agree with. De Weerd: That's our Planning Department, not Public Works. Donnell: I'm sorry planning. Sorry, wrong department. Our Planning Department. You heard everything I said right, Anna? Canning: Yes, ma'am. Donnell: Okay. De Weerd: And, Mrs. Donnell, I appreciate those comments and Mrs. Canning was along that tour and that is the recommendation. One of the reasons she brought the recommendation to study that area for this next budget year, since there is not sewer there yet, we didn't realize that we would have these pressures already. So, it just is a timing issue. So, she was well aware of what the potential is along that corridor, but nothing was changed, so-- Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, maybe I should have said something earlier, but in defense of the Comprehensive Plan a little bit, I think at the time that they were drafting it was when rail use was actually going down quite a bit. They did change ownerships and since the change in ownership the rail use has actually gone up. So, when we were planning we were anticipating less freight and more public and more likely to go as a transit line or -- I'm losing words. It must be nearing 10:00 o'clock. But since that time the rail use has actually increased and I think that that's a lot of why you're seeing this -- this needs to update the Comprehensive Plan to match what's going on these days is mostly that. Donnell: And, Madam Mayor, and Mrs. Canning then -- and that is expressed to the developer when they come forward with these plans -- with plans that abut residential development right along the rail corridor? Do they understand that? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilwoman Donnell, I don't think that this applicant was -- I've had another site where I have expressed that to the applicant, because I don't think they have been able to blend their project into the commercial and industrial uses on their other site. But this is more of an open field and we didn't -- we didn't discuss that issue when they first came in. Donnell: My concern -- follow up? -- is -- and I'm not trying to throw a tantrum here, but is that I hate to see folks waste their time. And you know -- and that's why I think that it needs to be clearly laid out what will and will not be accepted through Planning and Zoning and, then, when it gets to the Council. I think it's a lot of time and money wasted when they come forward with something that isn't going to be accepted. So, that was my statement. Meridian City Council July 26, 2005 Page 34 of 71 Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no one's accused me of being anything except blunt, I believe, when they come in the door. So, I mean we do try -- I think this one has actually been in the loop longer than it -- than you would think. It's taken awhile to get to you all. So, I think a lot of those railroad concerns weren't on our radar at the time that they initially came in for application. De Weerd: Yes, they were starting to develop, and it is unfortunate. But, again, I only give you these comments, because we have one chance to do things right and I appreciate the -- unfortunately, the timing of the master planning and that area is not conducive to this application. Any further comments? Mr. Wardle, did you have something? Wardle: Not at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Well, do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we deny annexation and zoning request as identified in Item 16. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 16. Berg, roll call attendance. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg: Roll call vote. De Weerd: I mean -- I'm sorry. Roll call vote. Rountree: We are still maybe all here. De Weerd: I don't know. Bird: I don't know if we are all here. We are present. Roll-Call: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Wardle, nay; Donnell, nay. De Weerd: And I would vote nay. I mean aye. Sorry. Rountree: Are you here? Bird: Are you here? Meridian City Council July 26, 2005 Page 35 of 71 De Weerd: No. I'm still waiting for attendance. Bird: That must be the woman for you. De Weerd: I am in favor of the motion to deny. Berg: Motion passes, which denies annexation, which Findings will have to be prepared such. Rountree: Findings will have to be prepared to indicate the denial. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR AYE. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, do you -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, I -- we will prepare an order -- an order to that effect that we will have on your next agenda moving to deny, because it's not in the best interest of the city with what I perceive from the discussion. And if that's incorrect, then, you can correct me, but that was what th~ basis for denial of annexation and there will be an order corresponding with the other preliminary plat and CUP, since an annexation was denied. ( De Weerd: Is that correct, Mr. Rountree? Rountree: That's correct. De Weerd: Mr. Bird? Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. So, do we need a motion on items 17 and 18? No? Okay. Item 19 is a Public Hearing AZ 05-023. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments Canning: Madam Mayor, Council, don't they have to take action on the other ones? I don't think they just drop them, usually. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess they are moot for the purpose of -~ there is no point making a motion. The order will reflect all three of the applications. Canning: Okay. Nary: So, we will reflect the final action on all three applications. They don't have to make a motion or vote on it, since once they haven't annexed, they -- they can't approve the other two. But the order that we will prepare will reflect all three applications.