Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 1, 2005 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council November 1,2005 Page 5 of 33 Bird: I move that we approve FP 05-063 and FP 05-064, with staff and applicant comments. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Items 8 and 9. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: AP 05..003 Request for Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of Banff Subdivision Preliminary Plat by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road: Wardle: Item No.1 0 is AP 05-003, which is a request for appeal to Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of Banff Subdivision preliminary plat. I will begin with comments from the planning director. Canning: Mr. President, Members of the Council, this -- the one you opened is the appeal decision. There are two other concurrent applications. One is the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development and the annexation and zoning. I wanted to also, just as a note for the record, because this application was filed under the new -- or under the old ordinance, we are treating the appeal as if it were under the old ordinance, even though it was recently filed for. The question before the Council tonight is whether or not they want to hear the preliminary plat, along with the annexation, zoning, and Conditional Use Permit. Because as it is right now, you will not see the preliminary plat, unless you grant the appeal. So, the two options, as I understand it tonight, are that you grant the request for the appeal and, then, set a hearing date for all three applications. You would open and continue the one for the Conditional Use Permit and for the annexation and zoning. The earliest date that I believe we could get that notice for is November 22nd. The other option is to deny the request for the appeal and, then, you would just continue the annexation and zoning and Conditional Use Permit applications until we could prepare Findings for you. So, that could be as early as next week. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. A procedural for question for Mr. Nary. Is this a decision in which the Council takes any testimony or indication from the applicant or is this solely our discretion to either hear the appeal or deny the appeal? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, you certainly can hear from the applicant if you wish as to that is their desire to hear it. I mean the nature of these appeals -- and you have seen a number of these over the years -- it's just because of the way our ordinances previously had been structured. You won't have this in the future with the Meridian City Council November 1, 2005 Page 6 of 33 way the UDC is now -- now formed. You won't have that type -- this type of separated application. But you can grant the appeal, if that is the applicant's wish -- and must be, obviously, that's why they applied for it. You don't have to have a hearing to make that determination. Again, you would be granting the appeal merely for the purposes of hearing the applications together, so it's really just the nature of the form of our ordinance, not because you're granting their appeal or approving their project or approving the plat, but just for the purposes of a Public Hearing. If you want to confirm on the record that that is what their intent is, you certainly can do that. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: My preference would be -- if we are going to hear this particular application, to have the preliminary plat along with the annexation request and the conditional use request as a package. I would not be inclined to react favorably to the other two without the preliminary plat. So, having said that, that doesn't necessarily indicate that this would move forward beyond a future hearing, but as a complete package would be my preference. Wardle: Thank you. And I believe the planning director clarified that in our new code that would be the procedure, everything would come forward together. So, this is one of those clean-up items from our old code. Council, is there any other discussion? I would entertain a motion. I believe we first need to act on the request for appeal and either approve an appeal or deny that and, then, move to the next two applications. Rountree: Mr. President, just a re-clarification from counsel. In a motion can we open the other two hearings and hold them open until we schedule a hearing for the 3rd or should we just act on the appeal first and, then, act on the scheduled hearings? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, I don't know that it makes much difference. I mean I think the intent -- you're going to want to open the other two and continue those matters to the date certain. Whether you do that first - - it probably would be easier to continue your appeal and your plat matter to that date and, then, you could open the other matters and, then, continue those to the same date. And, again, I think if your motion -- just to clarify your motion, if you're going to do that, would be that you're granting the appeal simply for the purposes of hearing this project and it's not approval or denial of the project itself. Rountree: And another point of clarification, Mr. President. Anna, what kind of time do you need if we were to move forward with this? Canning: The preliminary plat needs to be re-noticed. So, the earliest it could be is November 22nd and that's plenty of time for us. Meridian City Council November 1,2005 Page 7 of 33 Rountree: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Nary, I'm a little confused here. We are acting upon a request -- appeal on the Planning and Zoning on the preliminary plat; is that right? And we haven't even annexed it. How can we be doing that? We haven't annexed and zoned it. That's not until the next item. So, how do we -- how do we enact upon a preliminary plat when they are not even in our -- in our area of impact -- in our jurisdiction? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the -- Bird: Or did I miss something? I mean I could have. Nary: No. Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, what you're acting on is a request for an appeal. You're not acting on the plat. If you're going to grant the appeal, the appeal is simply to hear the plat. You're not making a decision on the plat. You're making a decision whether or not you choose to hear it. So, all you're doing is setting it over to hear it and you're going to set over the other matters to hear them on the same date. So, as I said, technically, if you want to open the other ones now and move them to the date, you can certainly do that as well. But all you're granting is an appeal. You're not hearing the plat itself. That's why we have to provide notice and have a hearing on that on the 22nd. Bird: But follow up, please, Mr. President. Wardle: Sure. Bird: But, Mr. Nary, don't we have to have it annexed and zoned before we have a preliminary plat that we can -- whether deny or approve? Nary: Correct. And on the 20th -- Bird: And they are not. Nary: But -- Mr. Bird, Members of the Council, but you're not acting on the plat, you're acting on their appeal. They have applied for you to hear it and all you're doing is you're granting their opportunity to be heard on their plat. You're not going to hear that plat before you take up the annexation question of whether to annex them on the 22nd. So, tonight you aren't making any decision on their plat, all you're making is a decision to hear it here on the 22nd. Meridian City Council November 1, 2005 Page 8 of 33 Bird: But, Mr. Nary, what would be the difference of somebody out in the county coming in and asking us to deny or approve their preliminary plat without being annexed or zoned? Where are we legally -- and I'm not saying we are not, I mean because I'm not no legal eagle, but I just -- we have always been told that you had to be annexed and zoned before you made decisions on preliminary plats, final plats, CUPs, and everything like that. Nary: But, Mr. President, Members of the Council, that hasn't changed, Mr. Bird. No one can come and ask you to talk about their plat without it being annexed. The problem is it's the way our ordinances are currently drafted -- the older ordinance -- not the new UDC -- was the plat gets heard separately and is a separate final decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission, so their only opportunity for you to hear them is by granting their appeal to just hear their request for that plat in relation to that annexation. So, you aren't going to make a decision on the plat tonight, all you're making is a decision to hear it. Wardle: And, Mr. Bird, if I could just clarify real quick. Discussion with the planning director was in the old code the power of the Planning and Zoning Commission was to hold the plat. They could hold the plat from going forward without a recommendation, as I understand it. The other applications come forward to the City Council in the old code regardless. Nary: And the reason that worked -- made sense -- or did make sense is if you were dealing with property that's already annexed, then, you wouldn't have to worry -- you wouldn't have to have your -- every single plat come forward to the City Council, it could be heard at the Planning and Zoning Commission. But when it's tied together, there was no mechanism in the old code to keep them together for you to hear them all, because, otherwise, you're stuck in the quandary that Councilmember Rountree stated, where without the appeal you cannot hear the plat, but you have to hear the annexation and the conditional use, which would have no relationship to anything without the plat. So, you would have to have them all together. It was just a deficiency in our old code that occasionally would crop up like this, where we would have one piece of it not tag along with the rest of it that you would see. But, Mr. Bird, what -- your recollection of what you have had previously hasn't changed. You aren't deciding on whether their plat is appropriate, is drawn properly, it has the right setbacks, it has the right lots, it has the right anything, all you're making a decision on is whether you will choose to hear that with the other projects and that's it. Bird: Okay. Wardle: Thank you. Further clarification, Council? Bird: No. Donnell: Mr. President? Meridian City Council November 1,2005 Page 9 of 33 Wardle: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: I'd like to make a motion that we do approve the request for appeal and that we would set that date at November 22nd, if that is appropriate for the planning department. Rountree: I will second that if you're done. Wardle: Okay. Donnell: Yes. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve the request for appeal and to hear that appeal of the final plat on November 22nd. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 05-033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.02 acres to R-8 zone for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 05-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development to allow reduced lot sizes, setbacks, frontage and minimum ground floor square footage for Banff Subdivision by Landworks, LLC - 675 South Linder Road: Wardle: With that I will open Items No. 11 and Items No. 12, AZ 05-033 and CUP 05- 036, for the purpose of continuing these two items to be heard with the preliminary plat on November 22nd. I will need a motion to that effect. Donnell: Mr. President? Wardle: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: I would move that we would continue the hearings on Item No. 11 and No.1 0 at that same time, November 22nd. Wardle: Item 12. Donnell: Is it 12? Wardle: Yes. Donnell: 11 and 12. Meridian City Council November 1, 2005 Page 10 of 33 Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to continue public hearings on 11 and 12 to November 22nd. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 05~042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 10.85 acres in a I-L zone for Weed and Pest Control Campus Subdivision by Ada County - on East Pine Avenue west of North Locust Grove Road: Wardle: Thank you. Item 13 is a Public Hearing, PP 05-042, preliminary plat for Weed and Pest Control Campus Subdivision by Ada county. I will open with staff comments. Canning: President Wardle, Members of the Council, I'm having a really hard time not calling you Madam Mayor. I really apologize if that slips out. Wardle: Please don't. Bird: That would be fine. Rountree: We'd enjoy that. Bird: We would enjoy it. Canning: This project is the Weed and Pest Control. It's on the south side of Pine Avenue, west of Locust Grove. You can see it highlighted. The site is currently vacant. You have seen a couple of residential applications on it prior to this, as well as you approved a lot split in the southeast corner previously. The applicant is proposing three lots and a road extension in this preliminary plat. There are no uses proposed right now. They are coming forward with a Conditional Use Permit. Normally at this time, because of the Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed-use community, you would see a Conditional Use Permit, but the applicant has agreed that they will do them individually, as they develop the site or they will come in for a concept plan for a CU at a later time. So, that's why you're not seeing it today -- tonight. There are no elevations, because, as I said, there are no uses proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their October 6th, 2005, hearing. There were no key issues of discussion and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. I would like to note on the record that there has been a question about an access drive that's being proposed with the construction drawings and that would be located on the west side of the property. I spoke with the applicant's representative today and he's going to come in and submit an alternative compliance for the landscape buffer that's