Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 06-04 AGENDA MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 1991 ITEM: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 21, 1991: (APPROVED) 1. RESOLUTION #137: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING FIRE DEPARTMENT AS THE LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE INCIDENTS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS: (APPROVED ) 2. FINAL PLAT ON MERIDIAN GREENS #2: (APPROVED) 3. PRE-TERMINATION HEARING: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED) 4. APPROVE THE BILLS: (APPROVED) 5: APPEAL BY '!OM TRACY & FREDIC SHOEMAKER ON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL ON REZONE OF LOTS 1-5 BLK 3 OF LEISMAN ADDITION: (DENIED) 6. DEPARTMENT REPORTS MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 1991 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P. Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: Members Present: Ron Tolsma, Bob Giesler, Bert Myers, Max Yerrington: Others Present: Jim Reed, J.E. Lowe, Diana Engmark, Fred Shoemaker, Jim Hugo, K. Beume1er, Norman Fuller, Gary Smith, Bill Gordon, Wayne Crookston, Jack Riddlemoser, Chuck Fuller, MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 21, 1991: The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Yerrington to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as written. Motion Carried: All Yea: Kingsford: Presented Jerry Payne with a plaque from the City in appreciation for his nine years of service to the City of Meridian. Kingsford: Read aproclarnation declaring June 22, 1991 as "Paint the Town Day". ITEM #1: RESOLUTION #137: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING FIRE DEPARTMENT AS THE LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE INCIDENTS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS: Kingsford: A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT AS THE LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE AUTHORITY FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE INCIDENTS OCCURRING WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF MERIDIAN CITY~ AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to approve of Resolution #137. Motion Carded: All Yea: ITEM #2: FINAL PLAT ON MERIDIAN GREENS #2: Yerrington: I have a conflict of interest I will be stepping down from this item. Giesler: Have the issues with the irrigation been worked out? Kingsford: The issues with regard to the easement on that property, I regard as a difference between Mr. Fuller and Narnpa Meridian and not that of the City. It is my recommendation that the Council do with this plat what they deem and let those two entities work that out. Tolsma: Have the minor revisions for Gary been made? Eng. Smith: On the sewer and water lines, yes. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve the Final Plat on Meridian Greens #2. Motion Carried: All Yea: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 1991 PAGE #2 Kingsford: The Covenants have been submitted, there were four items that we highlighted in each case there were increases in either the number of square footage of homes or increase in the price. The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Myers to approve the Covenants for Meridian Greens #2. Motion Carried: All Yea: Giesler: I would just like to commend Glenco on their project, it's beautiful and they have done a very nice job. ITEM #3: PRE-TERMINATION HEARING: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Kingsford: This it to inform you in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a pre-determination hearing at 7:30 P.M. June 4, 1991 before the Mayor and City Council, to appear in person to be judged on facts and defend the claim made by the City that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain Counsel. This Service will be discontinued June 12, 1991 unless paid in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest their water, sewer and trash bill? Jim Hugo: Asked that the Council grant him an extra month for his water, sewer and trash bill. Kingsford: That is okay. They are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth JUdicial District Court, Pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal the water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off for this month is $4,896.80. The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve of the turn off list with the exception of Mr. Hugo. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #=4: APPROVE THE BILLS: The Motion was made by Tolsma and seconded by Myers to approve the bills. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #5: APPEAL BY TOM TRACY & FREDIC SHOEMAKER ON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL ON REZONE OF LOTS 1-5 BLK 3 OF LEISMAN ADDITION: Crookston: I am stepping down do to a conflict of interest. Mr. Riddlemoser will occupy my seat. Kingsford: If there is a representative present please come forward. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 1991 PAGE #3 Fred Shoemaker, Attorney, 815 W. Washington. I represent the applicant who in a technical sense is Torn Tracy who owns the five lots,. the real party at interest in the sense that he has signed a contract with Torn Tracy, (the seller) is Mr. Lowe. I'm not sure Mr. Mayor what limits there are or what arguement you want to hear, if you have a time limitation if you'll tell me I'll certainly abide. I couldn't tell from, I reviewed the ordinance what the nature of the Council's review was tonight. Let me just ask one question? Do you intend to take new evidence or new testimony tonight or do you want to consider the evidence that was submitted before? Kingsford: I think we are here to review your concerns and contention that the Planning & Zoning errored in their decision. Shoemaker: Let me try to be brief. I will give you a little bit of history, you received from me a couple page letter and I'll try not to replicate what I've already said in that letter, I think a little bit of history is important. This property in 1977, the entire Leisman Addition was developed as a duplex residential lot and the records will reflect the restrictive covenants. Ordained that the use of that entire subdivision or at least these lots five lots were to be only duplex construction. So if you'll look at the plat, I don't know if Mr. Niemann has made that available to you, you'll see that the lots, the street configuration is ideally suited and in fact was designed for duplex construction. Apparently, and there maybe people on the scene that know better than I, but apparently from the record it's obvious that about 1981 duplexes weren't of much interest apparently there wasn't much of a market for duplex construction and the property was both rezoned and the restrictive covenants changed in 1981 to ordain or mandate commercial or a more technical sense office development and as you know of portion of the Leisman Addition was developed although not much of it. This property is generally located at the northeast intersection of Pine and Linder, to kind of put it into prospective, accross the street to the west is the High School. To the east of the subject five lots is a huge vacant lot. To the north of the Leisman Addition is a subdivision called Phillips Subdivision, entirely single family residences. To the south accross Pine is a subdivision technically known as Westlawn, you may know it as Weathervane Village, it's manufactured homes o~obile home court type subdivision. At the also approximate to this Leisman Subdivision just accross the street in the corner, that corner of the northwest corner which the High School doesn't occupy there are five single family homes. To the south meaning the southwest intersection of Linder and Pine are three single family homes. The picture I'm trying to paint for you verbally is a drive by will confirm this area is really predominantly if anything is residential not commercial or office. What we have are a portion of the lots were developed also by and are currently used by offices. Those lots comprise about 3/5 or 2/3 of the subdivision. Mr. Crookston's office is in one of them, which is of course why he stepped down today. His office is half occupied, the other office is in forclosure. I make mention of that point because of why we are here today. Why Mr. Lowe bought the properties and wants to build duplexes is that frankly just a product of market needs. The property hasn't gone as a limited office development. The reality is the market is saying out here in Meridian that we need duplexes, we don't need any more offices out by the High School. So we are really here today asking as we were for the Planning and Zoning Commission to ask you to respond to the needs of the market. It's not a horrible change we are asking you to make, it's not like we are asking to plot an industrial zone right in the residential heartland of Meridian. There isn't alot of difference in a limited office if you will and a residential or R-15 to be specific, are very close to each other in terms of intensity of use. What I'm saying is I don't think we've got some MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 1991 PAGE #4 spot zoning or real non-conforming or incompatible zones. What we are really doing I think is recognizing maybe these two limited office buildings that were built out there were a mistake and kind of trending back and at least allowing the construction of duplexes for these five lots as was originally planned in 1971. There has been some change in zoning ordinance in 1971 and Mr. Niemann tells me and I should tell you we've asked for an R-15 zone as opposed to an R-8 zone. Technically we are just going.. to put two duplexes on each lot for a total of ten duplexes, but the R-IS or the R-8 zone requires 4,250 square feet per unit and according to Mr. Niemann's and my calculations it just wouldn't quite make it to request an R-8 zone, that's why you see before you an R-15 zone. Mr. Lowe's plans, just to satisfy the City Council as we did satisfy the Commission. He certainly is intent and serious on constructing duplexes. I think the plans as we demonstrated to the Planning & Zoning Commission, you know the offices that are in there are as much resemblence to residences. They are all one story configured buildings. In terms of elevations by putting duplexes next to or adjoining these office buildings we are not going to visually be creating something that's incompatible. Again the predominent use I submit to you in the area is one of residential use not of office or commercial use anyway because these two offices that are there are the developments that are out of place. Now when you look at the Planning and Zoning Commissions Findings, as you read through them you may form the conclusion that I did and that was these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law sound like an arguement for granting the rezone request. Finally you get down to the very last conclusions and that is "the proposed zoning amendment is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian". But if you go through each of the other earlier Findings the new zone would be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and it is. The area and 11m reading from page 3 of the Findings "the area included in the zoning amendment is not intended to be rezoned in the futurell, and that's true, C - the area included in the zoning amendment is intended to be developed in a fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning, that's true, and let me stop and divert just for a minute. You'll know from your zoning ordinances that by changing this zone from L-o to R-lS you will not be for closing for these five lots the possibility of some day constructing offices on them. Why, because in the R-15 zone professional offices are allowed on a conditional use basis, so if Mr. Lowe is wrong like the original developer was wrong back in 1977 it can come back before you and ask that professional offices be constructed on these five lots. So really as I see it what we are doing here today is ask you all of the City Council to change a zone but really provide for some flexibility that I submit to you isn't going to hurt anybody. Certainly not the City at largeand I really donlt think any of the surrounding neighbo~s, either. Let me get back to these Findings because we a~e appealing from them, "there has not been any change in the area or adjacent areas which would dictate that the area should be rezoned", and again that would support the proposition I guess that the zone change shouldn't be allowed. I think what is stated there is true in this case there really hasn't been a big change and there hasn't been a new freeway that's gone down there. But I think what circumstances have taught us in the past twelve years since the property was o~iginally platted is that it isn't going to make it it really hasnft been a successful as exclusivlyoffice development. So we are just asking that duplexes be allowed on an optional basis. E - liThe proposed uses will not be designedl const~ucted, operated and maintained to be harmoneous and app~opriate in appearance with the existing intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will change the essential character for the same a~ea. Now, this is where I really take issue ( I MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 1991 PAGE #5 with the Planning & zoning Commission, I just don't think that's a fair or accurate or true conclusion to draw from the evidence that was submitted to the Planning and Zoning commission. Changing these five lots from Limited Office Zone to a multi- family R-15 zone is not going to change quote the essential character of the neighborhood. Keeping in mind that the essential character of the neighborhood whether your talking about a five hundred foot radius or a five hundred yard radius it is essential residential anyway. You got these couple limited office buildings that sit to the west and to the north of the five lots and if it weren't for that the entire area as a matter of use is residential. F - The area will be served adequately by essential public facilities that serve as such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structure, refuse disposal, water and sewer, again that's an arguement in support of the requested rezone. Keep in mind that the City tax payers paid for the infrastructure to be built and made available to this subdivision and to these five lots and they aren't being used now. The market seems to suggest to everybody that they aren't going to be used for office but will certainly be used for residential multi-family residential purposes. G - The area will not create excessive additional requirements at public costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community, again we have already really touched on that. Infrastructure and public services are already there. H - The proposed use will not involve use~ activities, processes, materials, etc. that will be detrimental to any person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, again a finding in support of the requested rezone. I - The vehicular approaches to the property will not create an interference traffic or surrounding public streets. Certainly true, these streets were designed as was the entire development for duplex construction. J - The use of the area will not result in the destruction, loss or damage to the natural or scenic feature. Again, we've got residential lots not a natural ammenity here that we are trying to protect, so I don't think "J" is relevant to the issue here. K - The proposed zoning amendment is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian. As I mentioned in the letter of course you all are the final arbiter's of what is and what's not. I'm just here to tell you in my view I can keep a straight face and tell you that in my heart to hearts I truly believe that it is in the best interest of your City that you allow a little flexibility in the zoning where there is really no evidence of damage or injury to the surrounding land owners and if fact so far as the generic or general ism interest of the City is concerned we are going to encourage development of lots that are already there. I think that there are some therefore practical reasons that makes practical sense to grant Mr. Lowe and Mr. Tracy technically this rezone. Again in a legal sense I think that the rezone from a legal sense is certainly justified. I just don't think that there was any evidence to justify not granting this rezone. I think all the evidence strongly supports if not practically requires the rezone that is sought. Giesler: My concern is I quess why 6 & 7 was dropped out of the project. As far as this project I think I could take a real serious look at this the other way is those lots were included. Shoemaker: The two lots were owned by me or in a technical sense my law firm. I sold them to - - his names escapes me right now. His interest apparently is not to, - we filed the applilcation for the rezone for both my lots and Mr. Tracy's five lots, a total of seven lots. Then the realator brought me an offer I couldn't refuse for loss of a better term, and the buyer decided not to proceed with the rezone, so that is why I advised Mr. Niemann the request was being withdrawn with regard to those two lots. I don't know that the difference between five lots and seven lots makes a difference between a spot zone and not a spot zone. Basically lots 6 & 7 the lots that I did own are the southerly most lots, they are inboard lots anyway in a sense they aren't on MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 1991 PAGE #6 the corner. Then the five lots to the north are the lots that are bound if you will by W. State Street on the North and West 15th on the West. The two lots that would remain L-G are the lots that are closest to Pine Street. I quess that seems more logical to me that those would be the more intensely used lots. Tolsma: The problem I get with that is that you are surrounded on three sides by Limited Office and there's nothing to say that that can't happen with a Commercial Zone or something behind it and then your sitting in the middle of no mans land. Shoemaker: You know better than I what development will eventually occur there just to the east, that big empty lot that I talked about. Mr. Niemann is the zoning on the big empty lot, is what is I might inquire? Niemann: It's R-4. Shoemaker: I guess the City Council could change the zone from residential to something else but again and I made a point in driving by there just tonight before the Council Meeting. I think without question you look at the surrounding area and here I've got a little corner of the zoning map and you draw the circle any diameter you want to, 100 feet or 500 feet it kind of looks like, smells like, sounds like an office complex but when you look beyond the you know more further than the lot next door and your in the middle of a residential area. Your right accross the street from the High School. I guess the question you might want to ask is what is more compatible to a high school an office building or a residential area? Well I think both are pretty compatible, if anything maybe residential use is more compatible with the school. Yes I think that empty lot could be I guess the City could rezone it commercial or an office use but it seems to that the market is telling you and I think the land uses in that vicinity there look like residential uses. Kingsford: I might just make two comments. I did not down when you were talking about Finding "FU on page 4, you had commented that tax payers have put in those improvements, that's not true. The developer put those in they are paid for separate that was not tax payers money. I certainly agree with you at least in part that perhaps a mistake was made out there, I have some real reservation about possibly making another one. I agree that there should be transitional zoning but I'm not sure that is working here. Atty. Riddlemoser: One thing about the economics of it right here Mr. Shoemaker. You'll notice there is no finding in there on any economic impact and I think one of the reasons for that are these two lots which have been left, lots 6 & 7. By leaving those two lots out and wanting to rezone the other five I think it boils down into looking at the Findings which they have approved is that you lack the good reason for rezone by leaving those other two lots down there as limited office. What is the good reason for the rezone? Shoemaker: We've got 17 or 18 lots in the subdivision, whether the rezone application before you is for five lots or for seven lots, I don't think those two lots on the south end having dropped off really makes any difference. We've got five out of eighteen as opposed to seven out of eighteen before you. I certainly did appreciate how you all fund your public improvements. The only point I wanted to make was that the public is going to be beClefited from something being developed on that property. "A" - not just an increase in tax revenue; "B" - your police cars, fire trucks already police this area. It's to the City's benefit that something occur on it that it not sit idle or vacant. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 1991 PAGE #7 Kingsford: I'd take accept ion to that, I'd challenge you to find any study that any residential pays it's way for those services that you just mentioned. Shoemaker: Yes, and I won't argue with you there. I think in 11+ years since 1977 this subdivision Leisman Addition has been a failure. We've had eighteen lots, only 2/3 of those lots have been built upon. I would submit that you can't find a developer in the world who is going to say that only 2 out of 3 lots developed in 11 years is success. I think that the market is telling you that there has been a failure here and I don't think we need to spend a lot of time saying that the Planning & Zoning Commission made a horrible mistake. What we've got is an opportunity to fix it and I appreciate the Mayor's concern, I'm sure that you know much better than I how kids and uses interface or donlt interface. I'm well aware of the fire that occurred in the vicinity and the conclusions that were drawn about who set it and what might be done to avoid that kind of thing in the future. I quess I come to a different conclusion, I don't believe that just because we have duplexes including duplexes that are occupied by high school kids is going to mean that vandalism or friction between the office use and the residential use is going to be on the increase. Kingsford: I'd just like to ask whoever might care to respond to it, youlve mentioned the market driven forces and that that had been duplex for sometime and wasn't developed duplex failure. We had a applicant in two months ago on accross Linder and on the south side of Pine that withdrew a request for townhouse/duplex type facilities saying there was not a market. My question is what is the market out there? Shoemaker: Mr. Lowe would know better than I. Kingsford: I recognize that you could probably fill five but is there truly a duplex market out there? Diana Ingmark, 3728 Harbor Point Drive, Meridian. I've been a realtor in Meridian for the last seven years, I work with Wright-Patterson. There is not a day that goes by that we donlt have calls from people for rentals. Mr. Lowe built two duplexes over on 7th Street, he had people with checks in their hands to rent those units before the roof was on. There is a real need for units for any kind of rentals. Kingsford: What kind of an age group are the renters? Ingmark: Two bedroom units your usually getting a young couple just starting out or an older couple that are down sizing. The three bedroom units because they each have two bathrooms, this is husband, wife with children. Tolsma: Is there any way that you could put these other two lots in there? Shoemaker: live not spoken with him. I do not know. Giesler: My personal feeling is that if that block was to be all rezoned, lid feel much more comfortable with it. If they want to rezone that whole section I would reconsider it. I would still recommend that this still be denied. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 1991 PAGE #8 Kingsford: Is that a Motion? Giesler: Yes. Yerrington: I second that. Myers: I somewhat agree with Bob but whether you have that whole lot or not I just don't think that spot is a good place for duplexes. Tolsma: If it did go all the way through like Bob said, at least we could have a dividing line there. Kingsford: I certainly want to say I have every sympathy for the owners of the property. I don't know whether a mistake was made, or it was bad timing. I think a duplex could be built and filled without any question, I just have those reservations about the zoning and all of that. I really have concerns about sandwiching those office buildings in between. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #6: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Crookston: The Restrictive Covenants for Chateau Meadows #4, I have approved. On the Police Chiefs request to have the veterinary Offices start selling dog licenses, I understood that to be them soley selling them. He did explain to me that the plan is to have licenses available through them in addition to having them also at the City. I do think it is appropriate to go ahead and do that, you will need an Ordinance to do that. Kingsford: What is the reasoning for doing this through an Ordinance? Crookston: Just so that you have Council action. I think you could do it by Resolution but I think you need Council action. Discussion Held: (TAPE ON FILE) The Motion was made by Yerrington and seconded by Myers to have the attorney draw up a brief contract and each applicant will be approved. Motion Carried: All Yea: Myers: The QRU now has another ambulance, which was bought from the County. Should be on line in about two to three weeks. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Tolsma to adjourn: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE) MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 1991 PAGE #9 APPROVED: > :: ,O/) ()c1 ~A L\l(u..~CY 1(. ~rJC,<<-11'~ GRANT P. KINGSFORD, MAYOR ATTEST: a....-- CITY CLERK / pc: Mayor & Council, P & Z Members, Atty, Bldg., Eng., Gass, Stuart, Ward, Police, Hallett, NMID, ACED, CDH, Settlers, Valley News, Statesman, Fire, Mail (2) File (2) RESOLUTION 137 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE INCIDENTS OCCURRING WITHIN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE THE ttJERIDIAN AUTHORITY THE CORPORATE DATE. FIRE DEPARTMENT AS THE FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIMITS OF MERIDIAN CITY; WHEREAS, Idaho Code 39-7105(1) (a) mandates that "thE' governIng body of every cIty shall designate by ordinance or resolution a local emergency response authority for hazardous substance incidents WIthin its corporate limits; and WHEREAS, the appropriate agency response authorIty, equipment. MerIdian Fire Department 15 the most to be designated as a hazardous material having trained personnel and appropriate NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDlAN CITY, IDAHO: SectIon 1. That the MeridIan Fire Department is hereby designated by the Mayor and City Council of Meridlan CIty to be the emergency response authority for hazardous substance Incidents that occur WIthIn the corporate I1mits of Meridian City. Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect irnmedlately upon its adoption and approval. AI;lOP.TED by t~UJ1CII thlS 71-1-, day of ....JurV€., .APPROVE:.D ~ by < th.e\ fYltlyor~ #--l:::-b- de y 0 r ~u rv ~ oft he C i t Y 0 f Mer i d i an C I t y, I d ah 0 , 1991. of the Clty of MerIdian City, thIS 1991 . APPROVED: .~f-I?~ ~ U I.)<? </ . ATTEST: ..-,~~ CITY CLERI-<. .~~-----...