Loading...
June 3, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 19 of 56 Rountree: No. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion? Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Go ahead. I'm way ahead of myself here. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve MFP 08-003, which is a request for a modification of FP 08-005, as stated in Item 9. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from May 27, 2008: 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 sections proposed for amendments) for Unified Development Code Text Amendment #4 by the City of Meridian Planning Department: De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 is a continued Public Hearing on ZOA 08-001. We will ask for staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I presented this to you last week and there was a few comments, so I'd like to go through those and, then, answer any other questions you may have. There was some testimony -- written testimony provided by Mr. Jim Jewett with regard to the TN-C district. We have gone through and incorporated the spirit of those comments. We took exact language and made sure it can fit in with the code as we saw most appropriate. We did forward those to Mr. Jewett. I don't see him in the audience tonight and we have not heard from him, so I'm Meridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 20 of 56 assuming that he is agreeable to those modifications we made. And I did want to just go on the record -- my only concern with these modifications is that we will likely need to modify them again shortly to incorporate the design guidelines. So, I just wanted to -- I really don't have any concern with them right now, but we may come back in another couple of months and suggest other modifications. With regard to political signs, there was a section in there that pulled out political signs in residential districts to remove any time and date restrictions on those political signs. There has been concern expressed about the proliferation of signs, so what we did, instead of the previous method, we went back through and took out any content references in the temporary signs in residential districts and because there is no discrimination as to the content, then, the time and place restrictions can remain, because it applies to all signs in residential districts. If you really want more information on that, I can provide it, but that's the short answer. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Then, there was -- Councilmember Rountree expressed some concern about landscaping in industrial districts. I did go through and look at the code today and have one short new addition to the alternative compliance landscaping standards that we could add with regard to that. As I testified last week, I have been doing this as an alternative compliance. I'm more comfortable doing it that way than doing a relaxed standard for all industrial properties, because it's difficult to accommodate those changes and uses where it goes -- where it adjoins residential or commercial or streets. So, I felt more comfortable just making it clear in the alternative compliance section that you could ask for alternative compliance with regard to the truck maneuvering areas and the use of chain link for fencing within industrial districts for screening, chain link with slats for screening within industrial districts. So, I did add that one. And, then, the final thing was you asked that I go back and add gated communities or gates for private streets. There were some recent changes done by ACHD with regard to a minor street section that would replace our current private streets, so that, coupled with the gate question, I felt would be better served doing a separate ordinance amendment for that and I will follow up on that, but t felt the scope of it was a little too broad for the noticing that we have done so far and that it really should be noticed and perhaps even remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, I felt it was better just to move forward and come back through and follow up with the a private street amendment. So, there may be additional items Council wanted to talk about. It was late last week. We didn't discuss much, so, please, let me know if there is anything else and I can address that, I can bring up the staff report that has the list of the full changes, if you so desire. There was also -- we received written testimony from Gary Inselman with Ada County Highway District with regard to the access to streets provision in support of that. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. You have heard staff comments. Any questions from Council? Rountree: I have none. Meridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 21 of 56 Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Anna, I had a question on the landscaping in industrial districts part, the 11-5B- 5B-3. And when I looked at the list of potential uses, first thought was that -- to just -- to pull from that amending provision the last sentence, the part where it says are within an industrial district and/or. So, you can -- so, the thought would be you can utilize that chain link with slating when it's near adjoining properties that are industrial uses, not merely are within an industrial district, because some of those uses in the district aren't really industrial. So, just throw that out for -- Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, any -- the current code provisions generally require buffers to industrial uses, rather than industrial zoning districts, actually. We went through and looked at that. That being that there are some industrial or -- usually it's just the opposite, it's non-industrial uses. So, really, any use in an industrial district would be an industrial use. There are some industrial uses that aren't in industrial districts, either because they are in the county or they are mis-zoned or they are kind of a-- have nonconforming zoning currently. So, we did look -- we did think about just using uses. We did think about just using districts. We can do either. Because it was alternative compliance, I wasn't too concerned about putting both, because it's still a judgment call as to whether or not I feel it's appropriate, rather than a standard. And this was one of the reasons I didn't want it to be a strict standard, because it does require a lot of just common sense and good judgment in applying it. Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Borton: With that understanding that it's, you know, directed towards alternative compliance, I see some obvious uses within a zone which you probably would clearly pick out aren't appropriate to utilize that type of screening. Canning: Yes. Borton: So, as long as it gives you the flexibility to deny it where it's not appropriate. That was my only question. Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions for staff? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Not right now. Meridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 22 of 56 De Weerd: Is there any public testimony on this application? Yes, sir. Sir, even. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Morrow: Walt Morrow. 2340 West Franklin Road, Meridian. De Weerd: Okay. You want to pull the microphone close -- closer. Morrow: Is that close enough? De Weerd: Yes. Thank you. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. I have some questions or some comments with reflect to -- and Anna and I have talked about this -- five foot landscaping requirements on interior lot lines within an industrial district. The issue there is that they don't make any sense from the standpoint of maintaining them when you have them back to back on each side of the property line, you have inter-growth amongst trees, it denies both properties the use of that. We have problems maintaining them from the standpoint of tractor-trailers, delivery trucks, those types of things, breaking the curbs, running over trees, breaking trees -- it is an expense, needless to say, that you don't recapture in terms of having the industrial user maximizing the potential of the lot, which is -- is the job there. So, I don't have any problem with landscaping along street lines. I do think those landscapes in industrial areas ought to be ten to fifteen feet and not necessarily more like 50 feet adjacent to a freeway. Certainly if that were the case when Western Equipment and Cesco and all those folks were there -- built their projects along the freeway, then, may preclude those folks from even being in there within the community. So, in the quest of trying to bring jobs and industry to the area and we compete with other areas, it seems to me that we have to understand that the maximum use of the dirt that's there creates the income and the capability of the companies to be there and the maintenance long term of the interior lot lines, landscaping, is problematic. Alternative landscaping is -- can be arbitrary. It seems to me that it's just another step that we don't need to do, but we have no landscaping required in terms of the interior lot lines and we have company backing to -- company backing and have the fencing in between. There is probably no better example of the things that I'm talking about than in Railside Subdivision, which is at Pine and Locust Grove, as you drive through there, it's now about a five or six years old subdivision, you can begin to see the overgrowth of back-to-back landscaping. You can see the difficulties that companies have with screening fences and chain link fences that aren't screening and maintenance and the fact that you lose the use of the dirt that can be put to better use in terms of making those businesses more aggressive -- more profitable and less maintenance. So, that's how I-- that's how Anna and I differ in terms of the interior lot lines. Any questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? Meridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 23 of 56 De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: He makes an extremely valid point, I believe, and I think others have made a similar point way back in my memory from times on the Planning and Zoning Commission. I think I have heard the same sensible comment. Part of the reason for the landscaping requirements are not just to make them pretty, but the landscaping helps clean the air, helps cool areas, and I think the intent is not to have vast areas that have no landscaping. So, I guess my question isn't really for you, it's for staff, Director Canning, and that would be the solution to the problem here would be alternative compliance, but since this has come up several times in my recollection for the same reason in -- always in an industrial zone, might we just want to say that we could eliminate it on the interior lot lines and make the requirement more stringent along the public road line -- if we figured out what the alternative compliance usually would be and, then, change the ordinance to say you have to put all alternate compliance in front of your building or something and, then, we didn't have to struggle with this every time. Is that workable or is that difficult? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we actually, don't have a landscaping requirement on interior lot lines. Where the requirement kicks in is because we have a requirement for a five foot landscape buffer adjoining any drive aisle areas. So, any vehicle driving areas I think is how it's worded. So, where that ends up happening is parking lots and, then, these truck maneuvering areas and the parking lots I think Mr. Morrow and I perhaps agree to disagree that -- that -- I still think they are necessary along just the parking lots, where they have provided vehicle parking spaces for customers coming to the -- to the building, I think that those are still appropriate in those locations. The other areas which can be a large portion of the site, are the vehicle maneuvering areas and that's why I specifically reference them in the language I'm proposing, is because we do get -- it just doesn't make sense sometimes, I will agree on that one, that there are instances where it's just asphalt for the purpose of moving those trucks in and out. There is no customers going back there or it's just maneuvering areas along with storage areas and the landscaping has little benefit to the actual storage of materials within the property. So, that's why I called those out for alternative compliance. But a lot of it depends on how that individual property is being used in relationship to the adjoining properties as to what makes sense and, again, that's why I would prefer that it stay within alternative compliance, rather than a more lenient standard. Zaremba: Thank you. Morrow: If I might, Mr. Zaremba, I would also suggest to you that the vast majority of these sites, in terms of the building lots, are acre to an acre and a half in size, with ten to 15 to 20 thousand square foot buildings. And so in that generally you have organized parking along the street frontage areas and the rest of the lot is primarily overhead doors that you're backing into and out of delivering, plus driving around the building, plus storage areas, so the interior lot lines in some cases maybe used for some Meridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 24 of 56 incidental parking, but the primary parking is along street frontages where we already have landscaping available. So, it's a matter of these sites are fairly -- are small sites. We are not talking about five acre sites, which, obviously, different standards should apply, because of the sheer size of the them and I'm sensitive to the argument about cleaning up the air and so on and so forth, because you can do it by size there. But on these particular subdivisions and sizes, there is just not a lot of room there and we are spending part of it for this use. That doesn't make a lot of sense. If that helps. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Well, what it muddies is what development do we -- do we account public parking on -- on the street in the allowance? Canning: Madam Mayor, I think Mr. Morrow means that it -- it backs up to the public street. That you have your street buffer and, then, you have your parking. De Weerd: Okay. Morrow: And, then, typically where ever you have your street buffer, you also have your parking and, then, the other two or three sides of the lot, either utilizing within the usage of the building. De Weerd: Okay. Morrow: And that's the problematic area. I'm totally on board with the street. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Morrow. Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: It's not a question. 1 agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying and I wouldn't put it up in the front, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't try and -- you know, if you take away that requirement and pose something else somewhere else, just for the sake of doing it, I would be inclined just to remove it, but, procedurally, I don't see -- and I'm looking through everything on this topic, I don't see this particular issue as being one that is up for the Public Hearing, which we could address through this process. It might be one that we need to fix. But assuming we wanted to go that way -- I might, but if everyone else did, can you do that for this process or does that need to be done another time? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, I forgot to look that up. Let me check. Hold on. Borton: Kind of a long way to ask that question. I didn't see it. Meridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 25 of 56 De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Well, I was just going to make that comment. I don't believe it was included in our original public notice. It was added because of my comment last week. I think this paragraph that Anna has provided us tonight is -- is -- or could be an interim until we get to the issue and maybe make the modifications next go around. But for now I think Anna attempted to do what she could on this item as this was advertised in hearings presented last week. A question for Mr. Morrow. I think that -- had a lot of schooling here, visited a lot of sites. It is an issue. I think it's something that we need to get on the agenda and talk about. But for Mr. Morrow, I think on an interim basis that at least having something written about truck maneuvering areas and chain link is a step forward and, hopefully, makes the process a little less arbitrary and I think Anna used the words common sense and I always go back to that comment that whose common sense are we using. And if it's Anna's, okay. If, however, Anna, has to give that common sense to each and every staff member as applications come through, then, I think we ought to get this on the agenda, get it taken care of. So, I'm just asking you for an interim as an approach that -- you can wait and -- Morrow: That's fine, as long as you continue to get to the point, because to something -- because we are rapidly running out of industrial or light industrial ground within the city. We need that in terms of a job base. The city's goal, in my opinion, needs to be to try to create cities in Treasure Valley that are job neutral, so we don't have quite as much commuter -- commuter traffic, those kinds of things. There is lots of positives about continuing to pursue industrial development and as long as the standards make for usable lots, then, we will attain that. I would have no problem with the interim steps, as well as we progress towards the ultimate goal. De Weerd: Well, even if you did we couldn't do it right now. Rountree: I think that's what Anna is going to tell us. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, actually, you can. We did -- part of the original was to modify the alternative compliance section. So, that is a section that we noticed for changes. So, you can make those changes. I would suggest that it would be appropriate at this time and as Mr. Morrow develops some properties, let's see if it helps us in moving toward that. If it achieves those goals, again, I think that -- I really think that it's going to be too difficult to write a standard to replace common sense in this instance. So, for the interim I would like to suggest that we just go with this for a long interim until we can figure out if it's working. De Weerd: Well -- and I think you could define it as the -- it's the director's call and, then, that answers your question, Mr. Rountree, on whose common sense. It's the one that's answerable to you. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 26 of 56 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I just soon have a law written that's clear and to the point than to have alternative concepts every time we have something come down the tube. Because we have very few to do identical applications and if it's a law written in there, then, that's the way it goes and the people don't have to worry about what the alternative concept's going to be all out. They know what is allowed and what isn't allowed by that. So, I would sooner see us get hard facts and set the law in place than -- and have no judgment left for it myself. I think you got to also look at the land -- the setbacks. Very much so. Industrial is different that retail. And we are losing industrial ground in Meridian. We are losing industrial business that is going to the west of us. So, we need to get after it. Borton: Madam Mayor? Oh. De Weerd: I don't think that's always a result of not lack of I-L or landscaping. It might have something to do with ownership, so -- Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor, I don't -- I don't have issues with any of the other amendments, but if -- and I can't find, Anna, the -- and maybe this is the language you're putting up here, which -- which fits and allows the option to try and make this change to this process. I know this process takes some time and if this is fixable, I'd just as soon table it a week to get language on this particular issue that addresses at least what Councilman Bird's talking about, if there is a way to have some more concrete guidance, again, on this one issue. Bring that forward. All the other changes I'm fine with. If that means we table it a week, I'd rather do that than require a separate UDC text amendment application to come forward and all the time and hassle with that and delay, so -- Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I-- I don't believe that -- well, the text I was showing before was a portion of the alternative compliance section. So, that was something we had notified. I'm not sure that we made changes to the landscaping provisions that would need to be changed to make this a permanent -- and that's what I'm trying to look up now. I just wanted to make sure that if we delay it a week to make permanent changes, it may require re-noticing anyway. But we can do that if you'd like. I-- again, I'm very nervous about a permanent change to not require any landscaping adjoining truck maneuvering areas without some -- you know, that they could take up right to the property line of an already developed property. There may be trees on the adjoining property that need to be protected. Borton: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Anna, you -- if we went that route you might be right. I mean I guess it also invites the opportunity for you to put together the list of why that idea is just dead wrong. Meridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 27 of 56 My reaction right now is it's the right thing to do. I could be wrong. But I guess that allows us to craft language and understand that issue a little more. I just -- it's just an idea. I might be by myself on this. De Weerd: Well, certainly, Council, it's your call. I think Anna has a point where there is some -- if you rush this through it can't be well thought through and if Mr. Morrow was okay to move forward with what has been suggested so far, he can be part of the new language and look at it as a complete picture where we can anticipate unintended consequences from action that might be done hastily. So, it certainly is discussion and your decision. And I won't ask for it right now, because this is a Public Hearing and there may be someone else who wants to testify. Mr. Morrow, anything else? Morrow: No, thank you, ma'am. De Weerd: I think you have caused enough trouble. Is there any other public testimony on this application? I did have one other signed up. Mr. Forrest -- okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Seeing no other public comment, Council, what is your direction? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would just chime in with what I think has been said. Other parts of this are coming together and developing into their supposedly final form, but I could agree with continuing this for a week to get some of the language on this subject, if that's what other people are saying. Rountree: Next week is a workshop. Madam Mayor, if we do -- continue this, we would have to do it I think until at least the 17th. I'm not sure that we would have time on the 10th during the workshop to address this. De Weerd: Huh-uh. Bird: No. De Weerd: Perhaps we should ask Council or staff if they have time to bring it back, then, by the 17th. On just that one issue. At least a recommendation and your -- your best advice on if you can deal with it under the current parameters of the changes as they are or if it does need to come back in a different format. Canning: Certainly, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: I could probably provide that within five minutes time by looking at -- at the code briefly. If the Council's desire is by the 17th to have new language, I guess I'm still Meridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 28 of 56 a little unclear on who all I need to consult -- am I working with Mr. Morrow? Am I working with -- there is -- there are finro industrial owners that talk to us regularly, Mr. Morrow is one and Mr. Van Auker's representative is the other, so I-- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I'll chime in. It might help that I would suggest that you work with your liaison. Bird: Be glad to. De Weerd: And I'm sure the industrial users that you know of, they would be good to consult. Bird: That's right. Canning: And have spoken to Mr. Morrow in the past. He's drug me on many a site visit at this point. And I did call Mr. Miller today to talk to him about the issues as well. Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I did want to clarify to make sure that my remarks were not misconstrued to say that changing the language was the only option. I certainly understand the reason for the request and it sounds like a reasonable request, but I'm also open to staff providing a defense of what's already there. Canning: And between the -- Zaremba: I didn't mean to say the thing I wanted to hear was new language. Canning: No. And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there was actually a difference of opinion between the two individuals 1 spoke to with regard to the -- the five foot landscape buffer, so -- Rountree: 1 can't imagine that. Zaremba: Imagine that. De Weerd: Okay. So, I-- it looks like the 17th will be an interesting discussion to continue this on. Just that one subject. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would move that we continue Item 10 until our regularly scheduled meeting June 17th, to address specifically Item 11-5B-5B-3. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council June 3, 2008 Page 29 of 56 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue this until June 17th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from May 20, 2008: VAR 08-004 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2.a, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway to allow a temporary access to SH 55/Eagle Road for Great Wall Restaurant by Kinsan Chan - 2590 North Eagle Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is also a continued Public Hearing on VAR 08-004. I will ask for staff comments at this time. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you may recall I gave the full presentation on this Public Hearing item and, then, the applicant requested tabling it after my presentation. So, I will not go through the full presentation, unless you would like to rehear it. De Weerd: Council, you did get a briefing at one time. Is there -- would you like to have it refreshed? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I just want confirmation that though there was anticipated change, nothing's changed. Canning: Correct, sir. Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Is the applicant here this evening? Thank you. If you will state your name and address for the record. Fairchild: My name is Mike Fairchild, I'm the architect representing Mr. Kin Sun Chan. My address is 1518 Mulligan Street in Middleton, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Fairchild: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, we have been working on this site for quite some time, anticipating that we would get access to this site through the property to the east, Boyd Homes or something like that. De Weerd: Bach Homes.