Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 23, 2007 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council January 23, 2007 Page 60 of 71 Bird: That was to February 6; right? De Weerd: That's correct. Was that your aye as well, to continue Items 12 and 13 to-- Borton: Aye. De Weerd: Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 06.052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 06.053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 single-family residential building lots and 3 common / other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road: De Weerd: Okay. Public Hearing on 14 and 15, AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Portico Place project. It's located at 1780 East McMillan Road. It's on the north side of McMillan Road just east of the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan Road as shown here. The applications are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and alternative compliance. The applicant has addressed this issue in his preliminary plat. The proposed development includes the request to annex and zone 5.17 acres to R-8 and a preliminary plat approval of 26 single family residential and townhouse building lots. The alternative compliance is with regard to the street buffer along McMillan. They are asking to reduce it in some portions from 35 feet to 25 feet around an existing home. You can see it here on the site plan before you. The dark area shows the buffer. You see how it kind of cuts in and that is near the existing home. The building lots consist of 20 attached units, five detached units, and one existing detached home. The applicant has proposed a gazebo, pathway, and parking areas and common lot located centrally. The gross residential density is 5.03 dwelling units per acre. The net density is 6.98. Here are some of the townhouse elevations. You have seen photographs of several of these before also. There are currently two development agreement provisions that were added by the Planning Commission. One is to state that if Lot 17, Block 1, redevelops, resubdivides or if any other modifications to the lot are made that require the city to issue a building permit, at that time a new plat will be required that complies with the 35 foot wide landscape buffer required along East McMillan Road. And that Lot 17, Block 1, is the existing house lot. The second provision would be that the existing direct access to East McMillan Road from the existing house shall be terminated and access to the house shall be taken internally from North Beethoven Avenue. That was a -- well, I'll Meridian City Council January 23, 2007 Page 61 of 71 move on to the Commission's recommendation. The Commission did recommend approval at their December 21 st, 2006, Public Hearing. Ron Sargent, the applicant and owner, spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. The key issue of discussion by the Commission was the retention of the existing access to McMillan Road for the resident of the existing house and the associated landscape buffer. The key Commission change to staff's initial recommendation was to require the development agreement provisions that I detailed previously. The applicant -- that's, really, the only two issues we have had. They have worked out another minor issue with regard to one of the common drives, but those two points, the existing access to McMillan Road and the DA provisions, are still outstanding issues according to the applicant's response letter. The applicant's response letter I feel I should discuss briefly with you and I believe you all received a copy of this from the clerk's office. And Mr. Sargent articulates his particular concerns with the -- what I'm sure are the unintended consequences of the development agreements that were added. They, basically, say that if you have to pull a building permit, then, you have to plat that lot. And, then, the other one says you have to pull a building permit to move that access. So, his argument is that to meet our conditions of approval he's got to pull a building permit to change the garage doors on the house, so that the house no longer has to take access from McMillan Road. To be able to pull the building permit he has to go through the plat and provide the 35 foot landscape buffer. So, I'm sure that -- you know, that sequence of events was not anticipated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and particularly by the maker of the motion who is now sitting on the end of the City Council, so -- but this is one -- we have worked hard with Mr. Sargent to provide the alternative compliance. We have trimmed it down, the area where they are providing the 25 foot buffer to the minimum that we thought was necessary to accommodate that house and we have worked with him on specifying exactly how much vegetation will go in there and really providing that alternative to providing the 35 foot compliance, so -- and although we very much appreciated the Commission's attempt to get a consistent 35 foot landscape buffer along there, I do believe that the way the condition was originally written with the alternative compliance will probably suffice for the city. We are very much opposed to that access remaining, so we have insisted and implored and coerced the developer at every stage to move that internally and not maintain the McMillan access. To do that he feels that it's necessary to reduce the buffer somewhat. I guess that's staff presentation and I'll answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Anna, I don't see any elevations in here. I see a lot of black slides that maybe they are elevations, but I don't see anything in here. Oh. Thanks. I was looking through my things for -- Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Mr. Sargent has also provided photographs of these units in I think three other developments that we have seen. So, he can speak to those as well. De Weerd: That would be great. Well, I see this in front of us are really more on the pathway from what I can tell, so -- okay. Thank you. Any questions from Council? Meridian City Council January 23, 2007 Page 62 of 71 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just a comment. It was well explained by Director Canning, but as the applicant will point out, there is a reason why they are asking for a variance from the 35 foot landscape buffer. I know he's going to say it, but the current resident of the house, who is, I believe, selling the rest of the property, but not the house, is legally blind, is very familiar with the setup the way it is, and would be greatly inconvenienced to have things change when she's familiar with how everything is. In order for her to use her front access and her garage door the direction it is -- not for her own driving, but for people who come and pick her up and apparently use her car as well -- De Weerd: Thank you for clarifying that. Zaremba: The 35 foot landscape buffer would -- would be too wide. It would, apparently, come right up to her doorstep. So, the dance that we were doing at the Commission hearings was that we all had sympathy for her need and desire that during her life time or her use of that house that we could .waive the 35 foot landscape buffer. Where I was trying to get it to was that that was not a forever exception. We were trying to find a way to have that waiver sunset, so that some day the city does have a 35 foot landscape buffer there and that's where we were going. We may have gotten the word wrong or there may be better wording that needs to be discussed, but there is a good reason for waiving it. I feel there is a good reason not to make that waiver forever. End of my comment. De Weerd: I appreciate the clarification. Any questions for staff, Council? Okay. Mr. Sargent. Sargent: Ron Sargent. 1883 North Wildwood Street, Boise, Idaho. Madam Mayor, Council members, to begin with, just to clarify, we do actually own the house. We bought the entire property, including the house, so -- but as part of that agreement we have allowed her to remain living in the home for the -- as long as she's able to continue to live there. So, we are the owners of the house and I guess as Anna explained, what we are very concerned with is this issue with the building permit, that if it remains as a development agreement as is written, we will not be able to get insurance for the house, because the house sits 35 feet and a few inches from the right of way, which means that it would be a nonconforming use, because it doesn't meet any of the setback. So, if there was some damage to a house, if one of our backhoes accidentally hit the side of the house, we couldn't even get a building permit to do the repairs on it, because it would kick in -- the development agreement would kick in, the landscape buffer would have to go to 35 feet, it's a nonconforming use, so is what we think would happen, the building department wouldn't be able to issue us a building permit. So, I guess our feeling is that we are at considerable risk with the development agreement written as it is, is that it just would not -- you know, would really put us in a very awkward situation. Secondly, I guess feel that the landscape buffer being narrower at that point isn't Meridian City Council January 23, 2007 Page 63 of 71 necessarily forever, because we really feel that the UDC and the city code, that if the house is torn down and redeveloped for that area, that that, then, gives the city the opportunity to put into place whatever the code requirement is at that point in time. So, I guess we feel that the UDC is a very good code in being able to deal with any redevelopments and future uses of that particular lot at this time. So, we don't feel at this -- our feeling is that the development agreement is not a necessary part of the approval and also puts a considerable burden on us, because we'd also be in a situation, because we couldn't get insurance for the home and we are allowing Mrs. Buckley to continue to live there indefinitely, we really couldn't do the development of the subdivision until she was no longer living there and if it's beyond two years, then, we would have to come back through for another application for the subdivision. So, we are kind of in a real difficult situation with the development agreement as it is. So, we would ask that the City Council approve it without the development agreement. I guess we had agreed with Mrs. Buckley and the family that we would ask for a continuation of direct access to McMillan, but the staff, ACHD, the police department have all recommended against that. I think we are going to request it, because that's what we said we would do with the family and Mrs. Buckley when we purchased the property. So, I guess we are requesting that, but we realize that that probably is not going to be successful given the opposition that there is to it. So, I guess I'd stand to answer any questions. De Weerd: Council, questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Ralph, this is a Public Hearing, would you like to provide testimony? Okay. Staff, any further comments? Okay. Council? You know, I guess I do. Those sketches on what the elevations look like, I didn't see pictures. I have pictures in front of me on -- of the house and the sidewalk, but I'm sure there is pictures in this file, but they must be the black pictures that are on my computer screen. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I meant was that in previous applications we have seen these pictures before. What I was trying to say was it's the same unit that Mr. -- name just zoomed right out of my head. Sargent. Thank you. I've just been blanking out. It's the same unit Mr. Sargent's been working with for a number of years. So, you have seen it before. That's alii was trying to say. That we are familiar with it. De Weerd: I thought -- yeah. We would love to see the color. Canning: Sorry, Ron. Sargent: We understand. What we do is as we go through the various subdivisions we like to change the elevations and the colors, change the rock, make modifications, change the look of the doorways and the windows, to add a variety and within a given subdivision we like to see a variety of different styles in units, so we are not building the Meridian City Council January 23, 2007 Page 64 of 71 same unit side by side, try to break them up with a combination of different color and change in architectural features and rough lines, et cetera. De Weerd: So, what -- your request is not to have the setback requirement in there? Sargent: The request is that -- De Weerd: And, I'm sorry, I have a headache, so I'm trying to track. Sargent: Our request is the alternative compliance that adjacent to the house we'd have a 25 foot buffer, but in alternative for that is that we'd plant an additional 44 shrubs and an additional three trees in the landscape buffer along there. So, we -- you know, that would be our alternative to having the narrower landscape buffer and we'd also request that the annexation and preliminary plat be approved without the development agreement. De Weerd: And why is that? Sargent: Because the way the development agreement says is that if we apply for a building permit, the landscape buffer would go to 35. Since the house sits 35 feet and a few inches from the right of way, it would be a nonconforming use, so the building department wouldn't be able to issue us a building permit. De Weerd: Is that correct? Canning: The way the current -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the way the current provisions of the development agreement are worded he is correct. If the Council wishes to strike the development agreement provision with regard to one or both of those -- I did want to make sure you were aware that the prohibition on direct access is noted in the preliminary plat as well, so you would not be losing that. It is as shown up on the board. It's in the preliminary plat conditions of approval, number 1.2.4. So, what Mr. Sargent is asking is that until the owner of Lot 1 comes in asking for additional subdivisions or asking to subdivide that property, that the 25 foot landscape buffer would remain there. Now, if they wanted to further subdivide at some point in the future, we could request the 35 feet then, but he just wants Lot 1 to be allowed as is. De Weerd: Along with access. Canning: No. Well, he's asking for access. He knows he can't get it. But he's told the owner that he will ask for access, but we have beat it into him that -- Sargent: To honor my agreement with the owner that we bought the property from, I have to ask for access, but realizing that staff, the police department, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended against it, it seems unlikely that we would be able to get that. Meridian City Council January 23, 2007 Page 65 of 71 Zaremba: Madam Mayor, he did valiantly defend that in the Commission hearing as well and the Commission sided with police and staff. He did his duty. Sargent: Did that clarify? Madam Mayor, did that hopefully clarify it? De Weerd: Thank you. Councilman Rountree is color blind. I'm just a little bit -- I'm not even going there. Okay. Council, any questions? Hearing none, what would you like to do? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 06-053 and PP 06-053. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Items 14 and 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry. Council, if there is no discussion, do I have a motion? Either direction. Zaremba: All right. I guess in discussion before we get to make a motion, I just -- I'm comfortable that if that lot were resubdivided, the 35 foot landscape buffer would once again come into play. I guess I worry that somebody might decide not to resubdivide, tear down the current house and build one bigger one farther back in the lot and still have the 25 foot landscape buffer, instead of a 35. So, this is the dance that we were doing at the Commission that is considering all the possibilities that might leave that exception there. So, I am not tied to the way it was described before or the development agreement. If the other Council members are comfortable or want to make some discussion about it, I'm sure if it is subdivided, then, that's true, the 35 will happen. I guess do we want to put some other limitation on it if it's not subdivided? De Weerd: I think that's a great idea. Zaremba: Then, the question would be how do we do that. Apparently, the development agreement -- Rountree: If you can word that, that's fine. Zaremba: Uh? Rountree: If you can wordsmith that -- Meridian City Council January 23, 2007 Page 66 of 71 De Weerd: Mr. Nary, any suggestions? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, I don't. I think without a development agreement I don't know how we are going to limit the future use of that property to at least that one possibility that someone would simply redevelop that existing lot. I don't know how we could -- it's pretty unlikely -- Mrs. Canning may have a better suggestion. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the applicant has stated that he's retaining ownership of the lot, so we could tie it to prior sale of the Lot 1. The applicant shall complete boundary adjustment with the homeowners association to provide the full 35 feet and, then, they could remove the existing home and presumably build something else. Nary: We would have to trust Mr. Sargent to do it. Not that I don't. I don't mean it that way. But I mean -- I don't know whether -- Canning: You could put it in the development agreement is what I was -- Nary: But I thought part of the discussion was to not have one? Zaremba: Well, it's to not tie it to a building permit or a repair permit. Nary: Okay. I think we could probably fashion some language if -- and maybe -- and I guess it's my ignorance, Council. If we are going to have a development agreement, but not that building permit to that parcel to that particular structure, that's the only thing he's asking us not to do, we can probably fashion the language as Mrs. Canning stated, that any other -- whether it's redevelopment or sale of that parcel would, then, require, prior to the sale, that it be done and we have some tool to do that. We could do that. So, if that's all we are trying to do, I think we could put it in a development agreement. It's my mistake that I thought we were not going to include it at all, so -- I don't know if you probably even heard any of that, Mr. Sargent. If we tied that -- if the issue is that we have a development agreement, but not tied to the ability to reconstruct that house, but simply tied to any development of that lot or sale of that, that the requirement would be that a lot adjustment would have to be done, including the setback, then, it would still allow you to rebuild the house and get a building permit and all of those things. Would that be a problem? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, would you like to reopen the Public Hearing, by any chance? Borton: So moved. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? Meridian City Council January 23, 2007 Page 67 of 71 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Canning: I'm sorry I spoke before. I believe I was under the misconception that the house was not of lasting quality, but' have been told that it is a brick home, it's nicely done, it's worth keeping. So, the applicant has said that tying him to sale of that lot -- he is holding possession of it until the current owner no longer desires to live there, but he doesn't want a development agreement tied to sale of the lot either, because -- and I think, really, the basic thing is is that this lot will always have a 25 foot buffer in front of it, until that house is torn down. Now, that may be 30 years from now, but -- Bird: Madam Mayor? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, I mean this is what the Planning Commission put in onto the development agreement and I don't know which lot it is, whether it's 16, one, or 17. Mine says 17 and that says 16 and everybody keeps talking about Lot 1. So, I don't know which lot it is, but, anyway, that's neither here nor there. What was the -- what was the staff's recommendation before the Planning Commission? What was the setback you guys recommended? Twenty-five feet? Canning: Yes, sir. We worked with the applicant to get alternative compliance for the 25 feet and we narrowed it down to what we thought was the -- the minimum length. I pushed for a five foot setback for a long time, but the applicant convinced me that because it's the front door and that's the way she's used to coming and going, that they really needed a ten foot front. Bird: And I -- and follow up, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Yes. Bird: And, Anna, I agree a hundred percent with you on this one. I think that 25 foot is sufficient. I think that if you want to know the truth, the way this home's built it's probably going to be standing when a lot of the new ones are collapsing. I think to be truthful with you, Mr. Sargent, as soon as this lady moves out or is no longer able to live there, he will sell it as a complete package. He's not going to retain it and live in it. I think 25 foot is sufficient, in my mind, and I think it's the something -- it's too nice of house to see tore out, to be truthful with you. That's my opinion. And while I do believe we need a development agreement, I think that that -- and what lot is it, Anna? Is it 16, 17, or one? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, the home is on Lot 17. The open space is Lot 16. I think that's where the confusion is. Meridian City Council January 23, 2007 Page 68 of 71 Bird: Okay. Okay. Common lot. Yeah. Okay. That's right in between whether I can see with my glasses or without or whether I can read with it or without, so, anyway, I understand now. That would be my preference, Council, and you can jump in here and tell me I'm wet behind the ears, but I would just -- I'd like to keep the development agreement, but I think we strike that Lot 17, Block 1, and go back to staff recommendation of 25 feet. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would move that we close -- reclose -- again close Public Hearing on Item 14 and Item 15. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 14 and 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Not a motion, just a comment, that the situation's very difficult to put the -- one of the solutions not discussed, somewhat easier for me, and it's not to go forward with this particular application. I know access to McMillan and the 35 foot right of way, is, in my mind, a paramount consideration and if we are going to try and gerrymander around a brick house with some unique needs at the present time, at least not ready in terms of joining the City of Meridian in its apparent condition -- at any rate, that's my two bits is I'm not necessarily comfortable going forward with those types of concessions. De Weerd: Thank you. I agree. Any further discussion from Council? Okay. Do I have a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would move that we deny Item 14, AZ 06-052. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Motion and a second to deny Item 14. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Meridian City Council January 23, 2007 Page 69 of 71 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Okay. Item 15 is immaterial, because Item 14 was not approved. Nary: You still need to take action, Madam Mayor. Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we deny Item 15, PP 06-053. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny Item 15. All those -- I'm sorry. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Amendment to Ordinance No. 07.1282 A: AZ 06.042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Cottswold Villaae Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 East Amity Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 16 is amendment to Ordinance No. 07-1282 on AZ 06-042. Staff, any comment necessary on this? Mr. Nary? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think this is a return from the Tax Commission. There was just some errors in the legal, so we just cleaned it up. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read this ordinance -- you don't have to? Berg: No. Madam Mayor, the reason this is being amended is because the zoning was incorrect on the original ordinance and so we corrected it. De Weerd: Okay.