Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 15, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council Aprii 15, 2008 Page 16 of 81 De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I move we continue Items 11, 12 and 13 to after Item 18. Bird: I would second that. De Weerd: Okay. And I do have a motion to put these to the end of our agenda. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: TE 08-003 Request for approval of an 18-month Time Extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the Final Plat and commence the use in accordance with the conditions of approval of AZ 05-016, PP 05-023, CUP 05-024, FP 06-011, PS 07-003 and TE 07-004 for Umbria Subdivision (aka Silver Oaks) by Ten Mile Development, LLC - north side of West Franklin Road, approximately '/ mile west of North Ten Mile Road: De Weerd: And we know most of you are here tonight for that. We should not be too long in getting through our agenda. Item 14 is a Public Hearing on TE 08-003. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Umbria project. It's located at Ten Mile and Franklin just west of the future church site. The applications before you tonight are for a time extension for final plat and a Conditional Use Permit. This is the approved final plat. It's a rather simple plat. And, then, this is the site plan for the Conditional Use Permit. The approved final plat consists of one multi-family residential building lot, one commercial building lot, and one irrigation lot. The approved Conditional Use Permit consists of a planned development for 70 multi-family structures and those were four-plex structures on a single lot with private clubhouse and park and multi-use pathways, zoned R-15. And, then, there is also one commercial lot for a day care or office buildings, zoned L-O. The preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permits were approved by City Council on October of 2005 and, then, the planning director approved a 12 month time extension for the plat and Conditional Use Permit in March of 2007. As a condition of granting the previous time extension, I required the applicant to comply with four additional conditions of approval based on the current UDC requirements that were not in effect at the time that this project was approved. So, this was approved prior to the re-haul of the zoning ordinance. The final plat was approved by City Council on March 21 st of 2006. This time extension will expire on the April -- or did expire on April 11th. They did get the paperwork to us in time. Actually, they got it to us on February 27th. And they are asking for an additional 18 month extension for both the final plat recordation and commencement of the conditional use. The applicant is requesting the time extension, because the developer went bankrupt after the first time extension was approved and the new owner received the property back in foreclosure about finro months ago. And the owner needs additional time to find Meridian City Council Aprii 15, 2008 Page 17 of 81 a buyer. With all extensions the city may require compliance with current provisions of the UDC as a condition for granting a time extension. The gross residential density of this project is just around ten units per acre. So, staff has recommended approval based on the code. You're going to start seeing a lot of time extensions before you and it is an opportunity to evaluate whether or not you want to approve them. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for Mrs. Canning? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: This came through while I was still on the Planning and Zoning Commission and I'm not sure that I ever knew the end result of a discussion that was around here. At the Planning and Zoning Commission I believe we wanted them to require to bond for half of the bridge across this canal. Would you have any recollection whether the City Council required that? Canning: No. And I did not bring a copy of the original permit with me tonight. So, I may be able to pull up -- find the file if I-- given some time, but I can't answer off the top of my head. Zaremba: I know that's a challenge to do that. Canning: It was awhile ago, sir, so I-- Zaremba: Yes, it was. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor. Question for Anna. At the time of the initial approval were there any -- was there a development agreement and are there any design requirements associated with this particular application? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I do recall that there was four different elevations given to you of the type of product and the Conditional Use Permit was tied to those elevations. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: And, actually, if you recall, those elevations came back a second time after a modification. Bird: That's right. Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 18 of 81 Rountree: That's right. I remember now. De Weerd: So -- if there is no further questions by Council, I would ask if the applicant has comments. Erhart: Madam Mayor and City Council, I'm Milt Erhart and I'm representing as an agent for the developer. De Weerd: Mr. Erhart, will you, please, state your address for the record. Erhart: My address is 9540 West Pebble Brook Lane, Garden City. De Weerd: Thank you. Erhart: All right. Basically, Anna has given you the details. I really can't add much to it. There are a number of potential buyers at this point in time for the development, so I think if the time extension is granted that probably you're going to see this thing coming in for some building permits sometime in the next six months to get this thing moving. So, to my knowledge the -- the owners, who got this property back unsuspectingly, they -- that's the way it happened, basically, they needed -- they need this extension to get the appropriate buyer in the door. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant's representative? Rountree: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would ask you the same question. Are you aware if there is a requirement to --? Erhart: I'm not aware, but I-- I wouldn't think that that would be a major problem. That's not a major expense. Zaremba: Okay. Erhart: But I-- I'm speaking a little out of turn, but I don't see that as a big issue. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 19 of 81 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, there was a DA required and it does say that the applicant shall be responsible for all associated with piping the Kennedy Lateral, unless otherwise specifically waived by Nampa-Meridian. The plat -- I wasn't able to quickly see anything regarding a bridge. So, I don't believe there was a requirement, other than as a requirement to pipe the Kenney Lateral, which would facilitate cross-access across to that other property. Zaremba: And the issue, Madam Mayor -- the issue raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission was the connectivity and whether or not people would have to go back out onto Franklin, which is the arterial that this abuts, in order to gain access to the church, which will be just to the east of this and they have -- the church has considerable property that could be developed into additional things besides the church and interconnectivity with whatever property develops to the west. My recollection is the Planning and Zoning Commission thought that that connection was important and the only way to get it would be for the applicant to bond for half of it. It apparently didn't -- the City Council, apparently, did not make that requirement. I am asking to raise that as an issue again. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I guess I would ask you in consideration for a time extension, is this something that could be added to the conditions? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean for the time -- the time extension itself -- the time extension is just for the -- the plat, not for the development agreement. So, you certainly can do that, but I guess I would be more -- I'm more comfortable if you were going to do that, to, then, notice it up for a hearing, so they have an opportunity to come and respond. Until Councilmember Zaremba raised the question it certainly didn't ring a bell with me, but I seem to recall a lengthy discussion and I-- and maybe this is just my recollection -- I don't believe anybody has ever come here and offered to pay for half of a bridge, because of the general expense of that and because the other property -- the adjacent property of the triangle there was no development on that parcel, so the logic of where it would be and whether or not that was a reasonable connection at that time, I don't believe they agreed to that. And that's why it's not in the DA. So, besides the time extension, you're going to have to also amend the development agreement if you want to include that and, therefore, you need a Public Hearing. So, I would be hesitant to just grant a time extension and condition something like that without a hearing. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. I recall this application, because I wasn't really fond of it and that was one of the reasons, but -- Zaremba: Well, Madam Mayor, my suggestion, in light of what Mr. Nary has said, would be perhaps to deny the time extension, which would mean a new application. De Weerd: I would probably ask the applicant if he has comments and I would imagine he does. Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 20 of 81 Erhart: I do have. Yes, I do, Madam Mayor and City Council. First of all, probably 80 percent of the infrastructure is already in place in this development. You're going to create a lot of havoc if you deny this time extension. Also, as far as the Ten Mile Christian Church is concerned, now I'm not sure of your question there, because they lie adjoining and I'm not aware of any water befinreen those two. In fact, the street adjoins and there is an agreement befinreen the church and the developer to develop the street together that goes in there. So, that's -- that's issue is there. And -- Zaremba: Just on that subject if I may, Madam Mayor. The water is on the other side. Over here. Erhart: Right. Zaremba: The church is to the east. Erhart: Right. Zaremba: And I understand there is a common street or driveway going to be developed, but the -- the issue is on the other side, although these people, when that develops, would need access to this property. Erhart: And -- may I? De Weerd: Yes. Erhart: As you see this development, unlike a lot of developments, virtually all of the curb is in on all of those streets. I would say 80 percent of the curb is in. The sewer is in. The water is in. So, those streets have all of that in at this point in time. So, changing the mix would be very interesting. In fact, I'm not sure -- I think it would jeopardize getting this development done in the near future at all in, my opinion. De Weerd: So, construction has begun, then, on -- Erhart: Oh, yes. There has been probably I would say maybe a million dollars worth of infrastructure is already in out there. At least. De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the public who would like to offer testimony on this application? Council any questions? Staff, additional comments? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba brought up the -- the interconnectivity issues and I just wanted to show you that just the simplistic Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 21 of 81 diagram that was done with the Ten Mile plan at this property. This is the property in question. De Weerd: So, that blue line is not the canal, but it's a-- it's a connector'? Canning: This -- the canal runs along this property line. De Weerd: Right. Canning: This was a collector road, yes. De Weerd: So, there was a bridge required or a connection to the west over that canal at some point? Canning: This was just the -- the thoughts on providing access to those northem properties as -- as depicted in the Ten Mile plan. It doesn't reflect any prior approvals. De Weerd: But, Anna, I guess in that -- in the plat I would imagine those were private roads, weren't they, or were they? Zaremba: Well -- and, Madam Mayor, that blue line doesn't exist on their plat. De Weerd: Yeah. Canning: I believe this was public. Zaremba: Yes. Canning: From here down to here was public. De Weerd: So, there is an intent that that will connect at some point? If not required in the DA, any additional bonding for that cost? Canning: Not that I could find quickly. De Weerd: I would imagine that cost would be on the adjoining property owner if they desire to develop. Okay. Zaremba: Okay. De Weerd: Any additional questions or comments from Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 22 of 81 Rountree: I think the Ten Mile plan is an indication that since we first saw this not months ago, years ago, things have changed. Granted, there is infrastructure placed, but I assume that that was on the back of the people that lost the property and not the people who got the property back. Is that correct, Mr. Erhart? Erhart: Yes. That would be correct. Rountree: Okay. So, you know, do we stick with it because of that or do we take a look at it -- we have conditions for any time extension, re-platting or extensions, are subject to changes that are recurrent in that period of time. The UDC design requirements now would have the Ten Mile plan in place, which indicates that it would be beneficial to the transportation network out there to have some kind of a corridor in there. I just make that statement now trying to think where I'm going with this application, so that's not a mystery to anybody. De Weerd: Mr. Erhart. Erhart: Well, if I could respond. In meeting with staff, I discussed the possibility of doing patio homes and it was my understanding that the City Council and the Ten Mile plan really wanted much higher density than that. So, this plan, as I understand it, fulfills what you're wanting out there as far as the urban zoning. So, if you are changing that, that would be a significant change and I think going away from what apparently is your Ten Mile plan, as I see it. This fits the Ten Mile plan, because in approaching them about the possibility of -- if I were to take to over, for instance, of doing the patio homes, there is a question whether that would comply and the other reason why -- you know, the bridge is one thing to have -- have walkway access, but if you're going to have street access, one of the things that people are asking in today's world is security. You know, this subdivision could -- could have a private gate. It could be a very nice upscale subdivision. So, if you're going different than that, then, I would have to ask are you deviating from your Ten Mile plan in the urban corridor that you're looking at? Rountree: I don't remember that in my comments I said anything about density. It's whether or not this plat is consistent with what we envision out there. I don't disagree with you in terms of its density. As far as security, one of the issues on this particular application was, in fact, security and public safety. And being able to get in there and serve that many units with basically one access road and that's still a concern that I have, but that's a few months over the bridge. Anyway, appreciate your comments. Erhart: One comment. I believe there are actually two accesses, one down here and, then, your main one that goes up and all the way through. Thank you. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 23 of 81 Nary: Madam Mayor, I don't know if this is of any help to Members of the Council, but I think Councilmen Rountree raised the exact issue why these time -- why these time conditions exist is because circumstances change, plans change, codes change. This particular project it just happens to be sort of caught in that circumstance where many things have happened in this particular area since this plan and project was approved, Thus, the reason those time extensions are necessary to come back in front of you because of those conditions. I think what Councilmember Rountree said and what Mr. Erhart was trying to address is the piece that is somewhat missing. The analysis hasn't been done as to how it relates to the current plans or the current codes. It really is an extension of what was already granted three or four years ago. That maybe something the Council -- if you want that, that's certainly something you can direct staff to do, but, you know, these situations, as Director Canning has stated, you may see more of these where they have allowed these things to lapse or merely lapse before they come forward and they are three or four years time gap and this one I think has had a prior extension previously. So, there is a fairly long time period that has passed. So -- and I don't think it's unreasonable from the Council's perspective to want to look at all of those circumstances that have come since this was approved. To simply just grant this again -- you know, I don't think where you're going is certainly unreasonable or un-defendable. It's not required. It is a discretionary decision. The fact that those -- those infrastructures are in place is certainly compelling information, but it doesn't mandate that you have to grant the time extension either. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any final comments from the applicant? You are allowed the last word. Erhart: Thank you. The only reason this project is attractive to any developer is the fact that the infrastructure is in and in this economic environment that we are in right now where housing is really up against it, getting that cost point down is the only way you can make the thing work. So, if the owner has to start from square one, my opinion is that that particular corridor is not going to get developed for awhile. Now, I can't say -- you know, I'm one of the individuals bidding on this. if I end up getting it, this is going to be a-- it's going to be a green project and it's going to be as close to is a zero Idaho Power meter as anyone can get. So, really going to go the second and third mile to achieve that which I think could be an absolute boom to the City of Meridian. I can't assure you that at this point in time. A lot has to do with what you decide tonight whether I will even end up being the developer. But that's where I would take this thing as far as a project and it in my opinion could be an exciting project, but, quite candidly, if you turn it down, I know I'm not going to go forward because it raises the cost just too high to -- to change everything around again, so -- De Weerd: But I guess, Mr. Erhart, you -- you raise a question that we were dependant on whoever it is that purchases it and does the right kind of project. And I guess that's what the Council is most likely grappling with is can you maybe make some requirements to come back for Public Hearing on the DA, so that the successful bidder is standing in front of us and talking about the project that he would be -- he or she Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 24 of 81 would be recommending to build to be an asset to our community, rather than take the roll of the dice and depend on chance to make sure it's the right person that's doing it? Erhart: Well, that's certainly your prerogative and I might say that the owners of this project have the bank letters of credit in place, the Ada County letter of credit, which I think is 160,000. I think the other two letters of credit are over 500. So, they have complied with all of that to try to keep this project alive. So, financially they have taken all those steps to -- to be in compliance here tonight as we are meeting. But you certainly have the right to require design review to come back before the Council. De Weerd: Any questions for Mr. Erhart? Thank you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Just sort of cut to the chase. I have got a suggestion and Mr. Nary maybe can tell me if and how we can get there. As it sits right now, I'm not in favor of the extension in light of everything that's gone on and sensitive of the concerns of this particular property and what's happened with the prior owner. But if there is a means for us to -- to utilize the Public Hearing process and I don't know how many weeks out it would have to be set to review the time extension in conjunction with potential DA modifications -- the one that jumps out was the bonding for -- for half the crossing, which it sounded like that particular issue might not be a concern. If that allows the applicant to meet with staff and see if -- if any and all current UDC provisions should also be applied and one of the suggestions might come forward that we would tie to an extension, then, we can have this conversation and it gives the applicant a fair opportunity to see what might be additionally imposed upon them and we can decide at that time. De Weerd: Mrs. Canning? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the question to ask would be -- or just to clarify on that one is the applicant responsible for submitting for development agreement modification? Is that what you would like to see? If it is, we probably need about a month to bring that back to you to get that application complete and bring it back to you. I'm not sure that you can`t place that condition upon the CU. It used to be that if their project did have a conditional use we didn't always require a development agreement -- it's not an off site, it's still an on-site condition or to place it upon the plat would be a possibility as well. I believe. I'm looking at Mr. Nary for -- De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. It appears to me the stick you have is this time extension. So, it sounds to me like you should go one of two ways. If you want some opportunity for the staff and the applicant to meet to see Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 25 of 81 -- because I think the concern Mr. Erhart raised is that if the project, essentially, starts completely over, there is no -- at least for him and maybe other potential buyers, no practical reason to want to do that. It's too costly and too time consuming to do that. That may not necessarily be the staff s recommendation. There may be a lot of what is accomplished is consistent. I don't know that answer and I don't know if Mrs. Canning tonight is comfortable with that answer. So, you could certainly continue this for finro weeks to have that opportunity for the staff and the applicant to have this discussion to see I guess a generalized analysis of where we would go with this. Again, still holding that time extension. If you, then, think after that report that this is a-- significant changes are necessary or significant changes are not, then, you can make that decision of either granting a time extension, because you can condition those minor changes to that extension, or they are major changes and you don't feel comfortable that there is adequate time to get that done with a time extension and, therefore, you would like the project to begin further back in the process. But I guess I don't have enough information tonight to tell you one works better than that other. I think we need -- I think the staff needs a little more time to analyze it and you may need a little bit better information and, again, Mrs. Canning certainly is free to disagree with me, but I don't think we have any -- enough information tonight to tell you which is probably better to go. But I think you want to hold that time extension at least for the moment until you have that answer, to, then, decide do you tie it to it because the development agreement process does require an amendment or the CU process requires a Public Hearing for an amendment. And that would take about a month. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: This is a Public Hearing, but it's not noticed for that purpose, is that the problem? Nary: That's correct. De Weerd: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in granting the director time extension, we did require that the multi-family portion meet all the multi-family requirements in the UDC. That was -- those were the conditions added. What the staff report doesn't do -- and it limited itself to the UDC. it did not look to the Ten Mile plan. So, you had no analysis before you of how this complies or does not comply with the Ten Mile plan and that seems to be the missing piece. Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 26 of 81 De Weerd: Now, can you do those comparisons to the Ten Mile specific area plan under this current application? Canning: I believe so. The authority given for time extensions basically gives Council the authority to add any conditions you please based on either new plans or new standards, so I believe it gives you that flexibility to look at that plan certainly. I can pull up the code, so we can all look at it. De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, can this be continued for that evaluation and consideration to bring back to the Council to make an informed decision? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I believe you can and, then, you at least would have more information than I think we have -- I think the staff s focus and my focus in looking at this was whether it technically qualifies for a time extension and if you want to grant that what conditions you can place on it. But as we have discussed this, we have gone I guess beyond some of the routine types of add-ons that we do for time extensions to ones where we may want to amend the CU, amend the development agreement. That may change the complexion of what the approvals and entitlements are and I just want to be sure that the applicant has adequate time to respond to that. I feel for Mr. Erhart, because that may not have been why he came here tonight and that may have been what he was prepared to respond to. There may be a lot more information that he may need to gather or staff may need to gather and that might be the fairest way to do that. De Weerd: Well -- and I imagine it sounds like a lot of this evaluation could be done under this current time extension application, rather than back under a DA modification. Correct? Nary: That is correct. I mean I agree with Mrs. Canning that within -- and maybe this is kind of the lawyer part of ine. Within reason I think we can add on other conditions. De Weerd: That's why we love you. Nary: Yeah. And within reason we can add them on. I think it, obviously, takes some agreement to get there and I just think there is probably a little gap there to getting that agreement tonight, but if we have some opportunity to work with the applicant we may be a little closer than we are today. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, what time frame are we looking at? Nary: 1-- Mrs. Canning and certainly my office or myself can work with them as well. I certainly think two weeks is more than enough time. I don't know whether or not there is time -- a week continuance normally means Thursday. So, that really doesn't give us very much time for Mr. Erhart to get in to have a real conversation or for the staff, so I'm just thinking two weeks might be better. Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 27 of 81 Rountree: Madam Mayor? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? Nary: Oh, there is no meeting on that night, is there? De Weerd: No. Zaremba: That's what I was going to ask. Bird: We might -- Borton: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: No. That wouldn't -- Mr. Borton. Borton: Milt, can you tell us what week's best for you to that have meeting and come on back? Erhart: I still have a mother that's in assisted living and family issues to take care of in the home state of Kansas and I will be gone two weeks from tonight. But three weeks from now or four weeks from now I would certainly work with you. I'm sorry. Not two weeks. De Weerd: Four weeks would work for you? Erhart: Yeah. Three or four weeks. Whatever would work for you. De Weerd: Okay. Erhart: The two weeks I just can't be here. De Weerd: That's fine. Thank you. Okay. Council? Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Oh, Mrs. Canning, did you have any additional comment? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did find the code on the Conditional Use time extension and it does say that approval of the request for time extension to an approved Conditional Use shall be determined by the decision making body at a Public Hearing and will not be granted if any of the following conditions exist. Significant amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or Unified Development Code have been adopted that change the basis under which the Conditional Use Permit was granted. Significant changes in land use that occurred in an area that will impact or impacted by the project. Hazardous conditions. Community facilities. And, then, just a blanket one, Meridian City Council April 15, 2008 Page 28 of 81 the Commission play place additional requirements, modify the previous approval or deny the request. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Borton: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: In my earlier comments I guess I am sensitive and should note that it's not necessarily Mr. Erhart's fault that there has been delays in continuation. I think he probably takes the brunt of having to come up here and get a second extension. But, hopefully, it's clear what we are trying to -- trying to do, just to make sure that the end result is right. So, if the applicant's okay with a four week delay, staff can fit that within their time frame to have these discussions and see how close we are or not close we are, let's do that. So, I-- De Weerd: Mr. Borton, I guess a three week delay would bring it to May 6, but the 13th is a workshop. So -- and I think the applicant mentioned three weeks worked as well. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, while I would like to see this issue resolved, l don't see the need to unduly delay it. If it can be done in three weeks I certainly would promote that. Rountree: Right now there is room on the agenda, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor, that's fine, as long as it is sensitive to fami{y concerns. If May 6th works, move that we continue Item 14, TE 08-003, to the May 6th agenda. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Item 14 to May 6th. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, is that to prepare an analysis to the Ten Mile plan or -- De Weerd: And also to work with the applicant on the comment that Councilman Zaremba made regarding the bridge funding. Zaremba: That's to the west. Canning: Okay. Thank you for the clarification.