Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 16, 2003 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council December 16, 2003 Page 3B oP 88 Nary: Second. De Weerd: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to rush you. To close the Public Hearing on Item 12, CPA 03-003. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we deny the approval of CPA 03-003, request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation by proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and --- - Associates, 3680 West Ustick Road, for the reason of -- to give us time to do new studies on our wastewater treatment plant for odor, noise, and et cetera, for the attomey to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny CPA 03-003 and for the reasons of further study on noise and odor and ask the attomey to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. Mr. Clerk, will you call role? Roll-Call: McCandless, yea; Nary, yea; de Weerd, yea; Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Now what? Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from December 9, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates -3680 West Ustick Road: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from December 9, 2003: PP 03-079 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates -3680 West Ustick Road: Meridian CRy Council December 16, 2003 Page 39 of 88 Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development fora 41- lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates -3680 West Ustick Road: De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, on Items 13, 14 and 15, because we have denied any amendment to the text to allow residential, 13, 14, and 15 are -- would not comply with our Comprehensive Plan. Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, the Comp Plan, though, is not the same as the zoning ordinance and so the mere fact that the text in the Comprehensive Plan does not allow the proposed use that the applicant is requesting is not controlling and so you still have to take up these applications to see whether or not they are acceptable to you. There is -- and so you take those up and we can discuss those one by one. In fairness to Mr. Centers, though, the problem with taking these up, if you deny them and he -- and, then, you later change the text and he wanted to come forward, he would have to resubmit and go through the whole process again with the same configuration and incur that expense all over again. So, just to note that. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. And I don't want - I don't want Mr. Centers to have do that, because that doesn't make a lot of sense. I agree with Mr. Nichols. It would appear to me -and I guess I could be wrong next year, but it would appear to me that what we are talking about is if -- if there is further information and further study and a decision is made by the next Council that residential uses are viable in this area, I think that's the key that Mr. Centers is looking for in the Comp Plan amendment. It appears at least from this Council's perspective that that would be a Comp Plan amendment brought by the city, by the applicant. Therefore, he wouldn't have to reapply. What I think we can -- I don't know whether -- I think if he withdraws it, I think it's the same result as Mr. Nichols just said, so I think the only way for him to not have to resubmit, although there may be some redesign, depending on what these studies show, I think we have to continue them. At least to a date certain - at least to our January 27th meeting, so that we keep it on the front burner as to what's going on with them. Unless you think Mr. -unless - we haven't opened the Public Hearing, but I don't want to certainly burden Mr. Centers either, but that's the only way I think to make it track with what we are trying to accomplish and, then, again, if we deade that is viable, he has an application that's there, so -- De Weerd: Well, we are not going to know at the end of January. Meridian City Council Decemher18,20IXi Page 40 oT 68 Nary: Oh, I know. But I mean that's the only way we can do that is to set it to the next day that we know we are going to do something with this -that relates to this application. Mr. Nichols is right, I mean, otherwise, we need to take them up -- we need to decide on whether or not we are going to deny them and Mr. Centers could start all over again and resubmit fees and everything else. That may be the case. Ultimately, he may have to redesign, I don't know. But at this juncture, you know, we are trying to be fair and I don't know at this juncture we know exactly what we are going to end up with, so -- and I think to be fair to Mr. Centers, we don't know that these studies aren't going to say that what he's proposed isn't viable and that's kind of what we have left hanging is whether or not it is. De Weerd: Mr. Nichols, is that viable? Is there any other options? Nichols: Well, first, Madam President, Members of the Council, I saw that the planning director would like to speak and so I'll give her her chance and, then, I'll see if I can answer your question. Powell: Madam President, it was, actually, advice from the City Council that Mr. Nichols -- in other states I know that long postponements have gotten cities in quite a bit of trouble in that they were deemed as kind of almost like a filibuster, I guess. I don't know how to really describe it. The applicants were -- wrong choice of words, perhaps, but that it was viewed as the city really trying to avoid making a decision on a piece of property and it got the cities in trouble and it's not a real specific recollection, so I can't cite anything. But I'm just wondering if the city is opening themselves up to some problems if they did do a long tabling, that the applicant might claim that we were just refusing to make a decision. Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I don't think so in this situation where you're going to -- at least the discussion is to take it up at a date certain and see whether or not there is going to be new information received, when it's going to be received, the information that you believe is -- would be necessary, probably, even to consider these applications without the text amendment. I mean there are some planners who would bring forward these applications without a text amendment and just simply say the Comprehensive Plan doesn't have the same force as the zoning ordinance and, therefore, you need to consider my application. Mr. Centers did it the right way and there just isn't enough information, is what the Council has determined, and they want to see more information. So, I would think that it's not a situation of just stringing it out and continuing something forever, it would only be continuing it for the purpose of receiving additional information data that the applicant, as well as the city, could use in evaluating his proposal. The other thing is in terms the liability side, there is no right to a rezone and so - at least under Idaho law there is no right to a rezone. So, if that's the case, continuing this in order to be able to get some more data to take up the question of whether to rezone this property I don't think is a challengeable action. And I think those other cases may have been ones where they just continued them indefinitely and they didn't say speafically when they were going to take them up. Meridian CIty CounGl December 18, 2003 Page 41 of 66 Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: You know, I think the one that's probably the most critical -- well, the two that are probably the most critical here I think in Mr. Centers' situation are probably Items 14 and 15, because those are the ones that deal with the design and as along as Mr. Centers understands - I mean part of -- you know, we don't want to forget, part of what the cost of those fees are is the city recouping the cost of analyzing the proposal to make sure it's compliant. We may -- we may have to revisit that, depending on what information we gather later and whether or not this particular project has to be redesigned to such a degree that it's problematic for our staff to reevaluate it again based on the information we have, but we just don't know and I think what we are trying to do is trying to be fair -- Imean Mr. Nichols I believe is absolutely right in that by setting this to a date certain, all we have done is continue this matter and all the discussion has been is to basically save Mr. Centers the necessity to resubmitting this project, incur more costs, when we are still just trying to study whether or not what he's asked for is viable. So, I don't see it being a problem. I think it's to Mr. Center's benefit for us to do that, unless he wants to get up and say forget it, I will just withdraw it or start over. I guess we can - he can always withdraw it. He doesn't need our -- he doesn't have -- I guess he does need our permission to do it, but I don't know that we are going to object if that's what he wants to do, but - De Weerd: Okay. Well, I will go ahead, then, and open the continued Public Hearing for 13, 14 and 15 on FdZ 03-009, PP 03-019, and CUP 03-034. Open it for staff comments, but I guess I would like to defer to the applicant to see what he would like to do as we move forward here. Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 - De Weerd: I'm sorry, I have to swear you in. Centers: That's all right. De Weerd: Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Centers: It is. De Weerd: Thank you, Jake. Please state your name and address. Centers: Jake Centers, 2011 Locust Grove. Yeah. I would like to take the route that Mr. Nichols suggested and -- as long as I think whatever the January 27th date, if on that date we would have the proposals back to do the studies, if on that date we can say, okay, by, you know, February 27th those studies will be completed and on that date, you know, we will rehear the text amendment and make a decision on that date, then, Meridian City Coundl December 16, 200;3 Page 42 of 66 yeah, I mean I don't intend to file suit against the city to hold up my project, because, you know, just - if we set a specfic date, then, that's -- I'm content with that, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Centers: Appreaate that. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Since all I heard was I'm move that we continue Items 13, request for rezone for Stapleton Stapleton Subdivision, and CU Stapleton Subdivision and all t meeting. Bird: Second. not going to sue the city, I'm going to go ahead and 14 and 15, continue the public hearings on RZ 03-009, Subdivision, PP 03-019, request for preliminary plat for P 03-034, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for hree hearings continued to our January 27th, 2004, De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing for RZ 03-009, PP 03-019, and CUP 03-034 to January 27th, 2004. Is there any further discussion? Just a comment. It's not like he could sue us anyway. I just wanted that on the record, that that is not why we are doing this, because he would have no basis. So, anyway, all those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Public Hearing: VAC 03-006 Request for a Vacation of utility, drainage, and irrigation easement on the south 10 feet of Lot 2, Block 6 of Turtle Creek Subdivision No.1 by Tully Cove, LLC -west of North Linder Road and south of West Ustick Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 16 Public Hearing VAC 03-006, request for vacation of a utility drainage and irrigation easement on the south ten feet of Lot 2, Block 6, of Turtle Creek Subdivision by Tully Cove, LLC. We will open with staff comments. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, the proposed vacation is the result of a replatting of a piece of property. This is the Turtle Creek and Tully Cove Subdivisions as they are now preliminary platted. Here you see the dark line that represents the former easement that was on the Turtle Creek Subdivision. When it was replatted for Tully Cove, that easement was adjusted and no longer necessary, so staff is recommending approval to come forward with a recommendation for approval from