Loading...
May 27, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian Ciry Council May 27, 2008 Page 42 of 52 Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant have any comments? No comments. Must agree with staff, since they agree wifh you. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 13, VAC 08-004. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a mofion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 13. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I would move that we approve Item 13, request for vacation VAC 08-004. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roil-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: ZOA 08-001 Request for a Zoning Ordinance / Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to modify, clean up and add specific sections to the UDC (see application for details of all secfions proposed for amendments) for Unified Development Code Text Amendment #4 by the City of Meridian Planning Department: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 14 is a Public Hearing on ZOA 08-001. I will open this with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is our fourth Unified Development Code text amendment since its adoption in 2005. We are still finding fhings that could be fine tuned or nits and picks here and there or other issues that you have asked us to address. So, the Commission did recommend approval of this at their Meridian City Council May 27, 2008 Page 43 of 52 May 1 st, 2008, Public Hearing. Planning staff spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. No one commented, nor provided written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were request for clarification on the intent of the modificafion to UDC 11-2A-2C regarding the necessity of adding: Or listed as a prelimina .ry use and I'm -- there are a lot of fhese amendments that are written for the sake of enforcement and just being able to -- for fhe prosecutors or whatever individual that takes these forward to be able to stand in front of a judge and say that it's clearly covered by the UDC. So, a lot of the amendments that are before you -- about half of them or at least a third are related to that and what I'd like -- with regard to key Commission changes to staff recommendafion, there were none. All they asked for was that clarification. And to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues for City Council. I did receive a letter from Mr. Jewett and he talked to me quite some time ago about the concepts proposed in his letter and you have a copy of that. I am generally okay with those. I didn't get them in enough time to really go over the exact wording, so I would like to go through kind of just the general concepts in fhe UDC text amendments and, then, probably review Mr. Jewett's suggestions and bring back appropriate wording for you next week. Having said that, I'm going to jump into the general concepts. As I had mentioned before, a lot of these are enforcement related. In particular, that very first one, 11-1-12, this is actually something that we think will come in very handy. It's already come in handy. We have a similar provision in fhe temporary use ordinance. And it, basically, says in the enforcement secfiion that the city may withhold any approval and a permit for any and all proposed activity or uses on any real property with outstanding violafiions of this title, except that such approval and/or permit shall not be withheld where doing so would adversely affect health, safety, or fhe general public welfare. So, that gives us the ability -- if there is an outstanding violation, it just gives us a tool to get them to come into compliance, because somefimes they -- they basically just say sue me and we're not always sure we will win in court, so we don't proceed with the lawsuit. There are a number of those. If you look down to number 11-2, the applicability statement, again, those were put in by Mrs. Kane for the purpose of -- of aiding in prosecution. And the same with 11-2A-2A, permitted uses. This language is just largely for enforcement purposes, as is 2B and as is 2C. And you will see those repeated throughout every zoning district. We also have changes related to changes in the IBC and that one is number 3D-3 here. So, where the UDC prior -- previously allowed buildings less fihan 120 square feet in area to not require a building permit, so we exempted them fhe requirements of ineeting setbacks. That number has moved up to -- or -- I'm sorry. It was previously 200, now it's down to 120. So, we made a similar change to the UDC to be consistent with that building code. There are a number of changes related to wireless communication facilities and I certainly don't want to go through them all. You may remember when -- just prior to the UDC being complete Mr. Dave McKinnon brought through a text amendment to the old code for wireless facilities and about midway through that -- De Weerd: I remember his presentation. Canning: Yeah. About midway through that he just -- his client decided not to pursue the text amendment anymore. So, it kind of got half the way through and, then, was just Mendian City Council May 27, 2008 Page 44 of 52 left. When we were doing the UDC we tried to incorporate those things, but I have to admit I was confused and couldn't figure it out. Well, I finally -- we haven't had a lot of wireless communication facilities. I knew there was a flaw in there. I was having a hard time figuring out where the flaw was. I sat down one afternoon -- I think I figured it out and so there is a lot of little changes necessary to make it do what we wanted it to do and that was, basically, to allow stealth facilities and to allow very small facilities within the residential neighborhoods that met certain standards. So, I'm not going to go through those in detail. You did that years ago. But if's just -- the mechanics of it weren't working correcfly, but f believe they are now. De Weerd: I still wouldn't want to see it on a street light outside my window. Canning: Yeah. There are -- there is one I wanted to bring to your attention regarding access to streets and thafs on 11-3A. This is to address some of the issues we have with some of the older commercial developed areas. Fairview Avenue comes to mind between Eagle and Meridian. Basically, what this says is that if you're developing property that has access to an arterial or collector roadway and you have got another option, you need to keep that option or if you don't have another option you need to provide cross-access. The idea was that we can, hopefully, close down some of those access points to those arterial roadways over time. This is probably the most controversial provision we had added to the whole -- the whole document, so I just wanted to make sure you were clear on that and aware of that. We did a few modifications to the required parking spaces for residential use. These are down in 3C. Basically, the way Mr. Hood restructured this was to make the parking space requirement related to number of bedrooms, rather than the type of unit necessarily. It provided a little more equity when it came to -- well, it provided a relief to one bedroom units, which we are seeing a lot of smaller units these days where you don't really -- if you have got one bedroom you probably don't need four car parks, as would be required right now if it were a detached family dwelling. So, that's the general intent of those -- of those changes. Oh. And, then, in 11-3C-5B we kind of clarified this idea of when is it okay not to actually pave a parking area. We have discussed this with you about temporary uses. There are some other times where asphalt isn't really necessary to achieve the goals we want as far as development of the community, but making sure that we have a dustless surface and making sure that just -- that there is a reason for not doing the asphalt. Okay. Moving on. We made a few changes to signs. Those are in 36. One -- Mr. Anderson's gone, but fhis was kind of for him. We found out -- oh, there he is. We found out that because of the zoning on some of fire stations in particular or some of our other public and quasi-public buildings we have out there, sometimes they have a residential zoning with no sign permissions. So, we did add a statement that says any sign erected by or under the authority of the City of Meridian on property owned by the City of Meridian shall be exempt ~from the provisions of this article. And that allows us to identify station number four as such -- or station number five as such. So, fhat was the idea behind that change. And, then, we did at look some of the temporary sign provisions. I know the Mayor has recenfly asked us to look at election signs again. We did have a section in here coming forward prior to that request from the Mayor. Okay. So, we also clarified the permanent and temporary window Meridiari City Council May 27, 2008 Page 45 of 52 signs and particular temporary window signs. We clarified that they need to be painted directly upon the window glass or composed of a transparent material affixed directly upon the window glass surface. The idea was not to have opaque objects placed on the windows such that fihey don't function as windows any longer. And I think that that becomes important for clutter and also some of our design guidelines as we are looking for visibility into those spaces. It also -- we were having issues with a sign company putting -- basically affixing large rafiher very solid copy -- changeable copy letter signs put on the windows -- affixed to fhe windows and calling them window signs. So, this would clarify that issue as well. Let's see. We also have -- we added a change for school signs. We have allowed school signs, but we didn't have any standards for those. So, we did put a standard in that maximum height for school signs shall not exceed 15 feet and maximum background area shall not exceed 80 square feet. We did send this off #o the school district. They haven't provided any comment. We also sent it to the Building Contractors Association and fhe Developers Council and we have received no comments. Finally -- oh. Wait a minute. No. We have made some modifications to the L-O district and new district setbacks and those are -- I need to go backwards for you here. One of the items we added -- fhis was specifically one the Council had requested was business hours of operation within the L-O and C-N districts shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. This restriction applies to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. This restriction does not apply to business operations occurring wifhin an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to cleaning, bookkeeping, and after-hours work by a limited number of employees. We also changed the front and the rear sefback on the L-O. It was the only district fhat previously had any front and rear setbacks. The idea had been fhat the L-O lots would -- would be homes that were being converted. We did have people going in and doing L-O subdivisions and fhose setbacks were making for inefficient layout and development of the subdivision. What we left for the L-O was to make sure that we had the buffers to fhe residential uses and, then, the interior side setback buffers as well. So, we feel we left the protections necessary, but gave them the -- a little more flexibility with regard to subdivision design. Okay. And, then, finally, we added two new districts and those are the ME and the HE. The MEHE. And they are mixed employment and high density employment. So, you will see fhe mixed employment -- and these are direcfly related to the Ten Mile specific area plan. The mixed employment corresponds with fhe land use designation of that name and would allow a mix of light office, light industrial, any employment center are basically -- they typically were envisioned as not -- not the tallest buildings in the Ten Mile specifiic area plan, so we picked the height limits similar to the C-G zoning currently. And, then, for the high density employment, these were a minimum or four to six stories, so we have a maximum height limit of 95 for that one. De Weerd: So, what do the initials stand for? Canning: Mixed employment and high density employment. And, then, I have pulled out the use table and showed you which uses were allowed and how they are allowed. So, like animal care facility would be conditional in the mixed employment. I don't know Meridian City Council May 27, 2008 Page 46 of 52 why I left these ones in. Church, as always, is conditionally allowed. Conference center would be conditional in mixed employment, but principally permitted in high density employment. A employment center would be allowed as an accessory use in either district to a large office complex, for example, or conditionally allowed as a stand alone use. A group day care, again, conditionally allowed. Drinking establishment, conditionally allowed within the high density employment. Education institution, a private school would be principally permitted. Public school as well. Financial insfitution would be principally permitted in the mixed employment, but only an accessory use to the high density empJoyment. The idea being there it would be bank offices that would be more appropriate within high density employment, not just the bank itself. Not the customer service end of that. Flex space, which is kind of a light indusfirial use, would be principally permitted in the mixed employment. Fuel sale facility would be conditionally allowed within fhe high density employment and a lot of these issues had been considered within the plan itself. They had a number of appropriate uses, so it was fairly easy to go through and to pick out the specific uses that were appropriate with fhose districts. Truck stop would not be appropriate in either. Health care or social services would be principally permitted in either. Hospital would be principally permitted in the high density employment. I'd actually like to -- if the Council approves the zoning designation, to go talk to St. Luke's about perhaps rezoning their property from L-0 to high density employment, more consistent with their use. Hotel and motel, principally permitted in high density employment, conditional in mixed employment. Industry information principally permitted in either. Light industry principally permitted in mixed employment, conditional in high density employment. Laundry and dry cleaning could be accessory in the high density. Parking facilities, as well as parks, public and -- public infrastructure, public or quasi-public use, public utilities, those are all kind of general public uses. Personal service would be accessory in fihe -- both zones, whereas a professional service, like bookkeeping, would be principally permitted. So, this would be like a hair dresser would be accessory to the larger use, but offices, again, would be principally permitted. Research and development facility, principally permitted. Restaurant and retail stores, both accessory in either zone, as well as temporary uses. Car wash could be accessory to the fuel sale facility in the high density employment. Warehouse would be an accessory or conditional use in the mixed employment. And, then, we get into the wireless stuff. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Back on fhe restaurants. Wouldn't -- in a high employment area wouldn't we want to encourage there to be restaurants, so that they wouldn't have to go very far for a lunch break or before and after'? It would seem to me that would be a good place for principally permitted restaurants. Or am I thinking wrong? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. No, thaYs -- and that's why we listed them as accessory. The idea is you don't want to have a restaurant pad, though. The high density area envisions minimum structures of four to six stories, so -- Meridian City Council May 27, 2008 Page 47 of 52 Zaremba: It would have to be in the big building, not a separate building, is that the -- Canning: I haven't seen a six story restaurant yet. So, I mean I suppose we could have one want to come in, but the idea was that they would be accessory to -- you know, be on one floor of an office building or something like that. Zaremba: But it could be operated separately from the rest of the businesses. Canning: Yes. Zaremba: In other words, it's not the cafeteria of a big business that's in there. Canning: Correct. And perhaps we need to -- that's a good point. Zaremba: It's open to the public. Canning: Yeah. We could make that principally permitted. That's -- accessory does imply that it's accessory, so maybe it would be better to do principally permitted and, then, just rely on the fact that it needs to be -- Zaremba: Six stories. Canning: -- four to six stories. Zaremba: Just a fihought. Canning: You talked me into it. I think I have overwhelmed the Council. I wasn't looking for acfion tonight, so I can take this up again with you next week or -- fhat would seem the most appropriate -- oh, I'd like to talk about Mr. Jewett's letter, too. I forgot about that. Rountree: Madam Mayor, if I might ask Anna. There is a couple things we have talked about that may or may not be applicable to this amendment, but one question that came up a number of months ago was gated communities. Is that something that could be discussed in this amendment? _ Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we hadn't discussed it. The direction you gave the applicants was that they needed to bring it forward, that staff wasn't going to. So, I didn't. But I could. Borton: We sort of left it hanging. Rountree: I personally would like to wrap up some of these, if -- we can at least talk about fhem and either leave them the same or make -- modify them to make them work. And that's one we have talked about I know. And, then, another -- Meridian City Council May 27, 2008 Page 48 of 52 Canning: You may recall staff didn't support that one. I think that may have been why you asked fhem to bring it back, but we can work on it. Rountree: Well, I know you didn't support it, but I got the sense that we might have. De Weerd: You may not have, but -- Rountree: You may not have, but I thought Council -- De Weerd: There was an interest -- Rountree: I think there was an interest on the part of the Council. Canning: Yes. Rountree: So -- and, again, I don't know if this is the opportune time to talk about landscape requirements on industrial zoning, but that might be a future amendment that we need to talk about. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Rountree, I think that we can do that through the aiternative compiiance. I'm more comfortable with that -- doing that that way for now. Rountree: Okay. .As long as we can make it work. Canning: We will -- I think we can. Rountree: Okay. Canning: And at least give it awhile to see what bugs we flush out and, fhen, we can make an amendment once we get that worked out. Rountree: I'm fiine with that. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the issue Mr. Rountree is -- Councilmember Rountree is speaking about is the necessity for the five foot landscape strip on truck maneuvering areas within an I-L district, as opposed to car parking areas. These were just only the areas where the trucks are maneuvering. It's generally against another I-L property. And i fhink that the code allows me enough flexibility to work with the applicants on just providing some alternative compliance for those areas until we find out a better code solution. Rountree: Okay. Meridian City Council May 27, 2008 Page 49 of 52 De Weerd: Okay. Council, anything further? 1 guess I would ask Mr. Jewett, do you have any comments that -- I know that we just got your letter -- I haven't looked at it. Staff hasn't reviewed it. Do you want to comment on fhat? Canning: Or I can, Jim. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you wouldn't mind, I'd just -- I can comment on the general nature of Mr. Jewett's comments. De Weerd: Or why don't you -- would you rather read it and have a chance to really evaluate it or do you feel you need to comment on it tonight? Canning: Well, I just wanted to give a brief overview. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: What -- the TN-C and the Old Town District didn't have the same kind of allowances for height and variations from height and foot -- square footage footprints that the other commercial districts did. And in reviewing his South Ridge project Mr. Jewett felt the need to have that flexibility for the TN-C district and it may be appropriate to have it for the Old Town District as well. What I'd like to do is work wifh Will Thornton who is working on kind of the site design stuff for those districts, be able to go over those with him. But, basically, it says if you want to do something else it's a CU, rather than a variance. If you want to do a larger footprint, it would be as a conditional use. If you want to go higher, it would be a conditional use, rather than a variance. And I'm okay wifh that concept. There was one -- there is a two story minimum requirement for the TN-C. Mr. Jewett is proposing that -- that it could be -- as long as 50 percent of it is two stories, you could have wings, perhaps, that were one story. That's the one in particular I want to talk to Mr. Thornton about and see how that folds into our design guidelines we are considering. But, in general, I'm okay wifh the proposals suggested. De Weerd: Okay. Good. I love the fact he doesn't want to comment. Okay. However, this is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide comment at this time? Certainly it looks like we will be continuing it until -- until when? Next week? Bird: June 3rd. Rountree: June 3rd. Canning: Next week would be fine for me, Madam Mayor. Rountree: Madam Mayor`? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I move that we confinue Item 14 until June 3rd. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council May 27, 2008 Fage 50 of 52 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Item 14 to June 3rd. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRfED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Ordinance No. : RZ 07-014 Request for a Rezone of 30.08 acres from R-8 to C-N (13.59 acres) and TN-C (16.49 acres) zones for Cavanauqh by Kasterra Development, LLC - Southeast Corner of South Meridian Road and East Victory Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 15 is Ord'inance No. 08-1367 and I would ask Madam Clerk to, please, read this by title only. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1367, an ordinance finding that Projects West, Inc., the owner of certain real property, has made a written request for rezone of the zoning classification RZ 07-014, Cavanaugh, for real property being a parcel of land in fhe northwest one quarter of Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and wifhin the corporate limits of the City of Meridian and rezoning the land use zoning classificafiion of said land from R-8, Medium Density Residential District, to C-N, Neighborhood Business District and TN-C, Traditional Neighborhood Center, in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing none, Council, do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. B'ird: I move we approve Ordinance 08-1367, with suspension of rules. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a mofion and a second to approve Item 15. If there is no discussion I will call for roll call vote. Roll-CaIL• Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRI:ED: ALL AYES.