Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 06 2019 CMCITY OF CHUBBUCK COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2019 — 6:OOPM LOCATED AT CHUBBUCK CITY HALL 5160 YELLOWSTONE AVE. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor England. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Scouts BSA Troop 384 INVOCATION: Tony Seikel from the Portneuf Sangha COUNCIL PRESENT: Ryan Lewis, Melanie Evans, Roger Hernandez, and Annette Baumeister. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kevin England, City Attorney Tom Holmes, Public Works Director Rodney Burch, Human Resource Director Scott Gummersall, Police Chief Bill Guiberson, Fire Chief Merlin Miller, Planning and Development Director Devin Hillam, City Clerk Rich Morgan, and Deputy Clerk Joey Bowers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 16, 2019. Councilmember Baumeister motioned for approval of the Council Meeting minutes. Councilmember Evans seconded motion for approval of minutes. Roll Call: Hernandez -yes, Evans -yes, Baumeister -yes, Lewis -yes, motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. An application for a Preliminary Planned United Development (PUD) called Sunset Townhomes which includes the re -designation of approximately 9.4 acres of land for 88 residential units. Location is 4933 Whitaker Road, Chubbuck, ID 83202, within SE % of Section 3, Township 6 South, Range 34, of the Boise Meridian, Bannock County. Current zoning designation is Limited Residential (R-2) and Industrial (1). Proposal will be evaluated against criteria established in municipal code 18.20.110 and Idaho Code 67-6511. The Land Use and Development Commission reviewed the application and recommended denial. Councilmember Baumeister recused herself from General Business Items 1 & 2. Blake Jolley from Connect Engineering represented the applicant. Mr. Jolley presented an 88 unit single story one car garage residential townhomes PUD (4-plexes and 6-plexes), and stated this development would remain under one ownership. The Developer had a neighborhood meeting and made some changes to the application after that meeting. Some of the changes included a 6ft privacy fence, and an access onto Chubbuck Rd. BJ Driscoll legal counsel for the developer. Mr. Driscoll felt like the message from Idaho State code on planned unit developments (PUD) is "flexibility". In Channel Northcrest Columbus Action Committee vs. The City of Boise; the Idaho Supreme Court's 2002 opinion was that the purpose of a PUD is to allow for flexibility in planning, which should be prohibited if the developer doesn't meet the requirements set forth in the ordinance. Mr. Driscoll presented City of Chubbuck code 18.08.010J land use chapter which defines a PUD as its own zoning district. In the City's PUD Ordinance it states a maximum choice of living environments, a variety of housing types, permitting an increase density, more useful patterns of open space and recreational areas, preserving the natural features, and a more efficient use. Mr. Driscoll stated this development meets the requirements set forth in Idaho code for flexibility; and the City of Chubbuck's ordinance, comprehensive plan, and historical perspective/precedence. Councilmember Lewis thinks every application is factually different and the decisions made by a quasi-judicial body is if an application had met its burden of proof. Precedence is helpful but what is important is the proof provided to that body. Planning and Development Director Devin Hillam went over City Code, and stated that this application meets the historical interpretations of City Code and recommended approval. Councilmember Hernandez wanted to know how exactly the Land Use and Development Commission determined that this application did not met City Codes. Mr. Hillam stated that contentions were made that this application did not met the definitions of a PUD under Idaho code. Mr. Hillam believed Idaho code granted the authority to define a PUD over to municipalities, and that the City of Chubbuck defines a PUD under City Code 18.06.180, and 18.20.10. City Attorney Tom Holmes asked Mr. Hillam if city staff meet with the applicant after the Land Use Meeting, and if city staff made any suggestions to the applicant on how to move forward. Mr. Hillam stated that city staff recommended the applicant look at moving forward with an R-2 (single family/duplex) development. The applicant choose to proceed with its original plan. Councilmember Evans asked City Attorney Tom Holmes if the Council was bound by previous PUD decisions on future applications. Mr. Holmes stated that in his opinion the Council was not bound by previous application decisions, each application stands on its own burden of proof. Mayor England presented prior communication letters from residents Jill Turner, and Paul Jensen. The Council wanted it known that they did receive a letter from Wayne and Alane Hale after the published deadline, and will not consider that information. Mayor England declared the public hearing open for public comment. Craig Parrish at 689 E. Chubbuck Rd. was legal counsel representing the Hillmans, who were opposed. Mr. Parrish stated that as long as the Council had a rational basis for a decision they had the authority to approve or deny an application, even if it meets code or historical interpretations. Mr. Parrish was concerned about the density of this development and land locking the land to the north of this development. Mr. Parrish also sited Idaho code 22-4501 about the right to farm. Councilmember Lewis stated that the Council needed to take into consideration the importance of private property rights, and is held to the standards of the City Ordinances. Mr. Holmes asked if this development was developed under the R-2 standard and density if the residents would be more open to this application. Mr. Parrish stated they would probably have concerns but would be more receptive with an R-2 development. TJ Budge with Racine Olson was legal counsel representing Terry Briscoe, Vern Briscoe, Michael & Rebecca Crockett, Verlyn & Jodi DaBell, Jim & Katie Forsythe, Boyd & Kim Hardy, Rick and Linda Hillman, Dana Hillman Stone, Dee & Janae Greene, Wayne & Elaine Hale, Mike & Claudette Jones, Brandon & LuJean Holst, Arley Lish, Kimberly Watt, Fred & Kathleen Wooden, and Verle & Patricia Yensen, who were opposed. These land owners are not opposed to a development that meets the R-2 requirements. Mr. Budge presented why this development does not met City Code; apartments are not permitted in the current zone, single parcel of land with one land use, does not qualify as a planned unit development (PUD), does not comply with the comprehensive plan, and this development would be detrimental to the present surrounding uses. Councilmember Lewis asked Mr. Budge about his interpretation of City Code 18.20.040. Mr. Budge stated those land uses that are allowed in an R-2 zone would be allowed in an R-2 PUD. Jodi DaBell at 4895 Whitaker Rd, was opposed. Ms. DaBell wants development in Chubbuck, but wanted development where people come and stay for the long term. She thinks that would be in single family homes and not in apartments or townhomes. Ms. DaBell was also concerned about the traffic on Whitaker and Chubbuck Roads. Arley Lish at 4913 Whitaker Rd. was opposed. Mr. Lish was concerned about traffic, and felt like it didn't meet city code. Mr. Lish also said this development didn't fit their neighborhood. Dee Greene at 410 E. Chubbuck Rd. was opposed. Mr. Greene was concerned about traffic and presented traffic numbers from the Idaho Transportation Department. Mr. Greene was also concerned about the irrigation/water rights, and how those would be maintained. Verle Yensen at 4940 Whitaker Rd. was opposed. Mr. Yensen was concerned about the increase of traffic, and stated that this development was not consistent with the surrounding areas and would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Jim Forsythe at 4839 Whitaker Rd. was opposed. Mr. Forsythe stated that this area was not all zoned R-2, and thought that all uses could be permitted in a PUD but it had to have multiple uses to qualify, and this application only had one. Vern Briscoe at 5112 Whitaker Rd. was opposed. Mr. Briscoe was concerned about irrigation rights, and water runoff. Patricia Yensen at 4940 Whitaker Rd. was opposed. Ms. Yensen was concerned about traffic head lights, and did not think this development was consistent with the surrounding areas and will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Brandon Holst at 4941 Whitaker Rd, was opposed. Mr. Holst stated that it should remain an R-2 zone and be developed as an R-2 development. LuJean Holst at 4941 Whitaker Rd, was opposed. Ms. Holst was concerned about the affect it would have on their property and their landscape investment. Kimberly Watt at 4924 Whitaker Rd. was opposed. Ms. Watt was concerned about the increased traffic using the LDS Church parking lot to get onto Hiline Rd. from Whitaker Rd. Niki Taysom at the Super 8, was opposed. Ms. Taysom was opposed because of the density of the development and increased traffic. Dana Hillman at 4967 Whitaker Rd. was opposed. Ms. Hillman was concerned about the affect this would have on their current cattle operations, facilities, and irrigation rights. Ms. Hillam was also concerned about the density and increase of traffic. Kim Hardy at 426 E. Chubbuck Rd. was opposed. Ms. Hardy was concerned about traffic, and irrigation. Ms. Hardy stated that there was already too much high density development along this main corridor in Chubbuck. Mike Crockett at 5111 Whitaker Rd. was opposed. Mr. Crockett agreed with everything that had already been said. Mr. Crockett stated that it should remain an R-2 zone and be developed as an R-2 development. Arley Lish at 4913 Whitaker Rd. was opposed. Mr. Lish stated that the developer could build 16 half acre lots in a cul-de-sac in this area. Paul Jensen at 125 N. Garfield was in favor. Mr. Jensen believed this development would maintain the property, like the existing surrounding residents. Niki Taysom at the Super 8, was opposed. Ms. Taysom stated that this development was too close to the train tracks to keep children safe. Due to no more comment Mayor England closed the public hearing. BJ Driscoll stated that if there hadn't been a change in the law, than the Council doesn't have a rational basis and should follow historical precedence. Mr. Driscoll also stated that this application is not building under an R-2 zone, but requesting for a PUD rezone, which allows apartments to be built. Mr. Driscoll stated that City Code 18.08.010 lists all the different uses which includes a PUD as a variety of uses. Also chapter 10 in the comprehensive plan under medium density allows 8-12 units per acre, and this development would qualify at 9 units per acre. Mr. Driscoll stated that this was a great buffer development between the train tracks and the single family units that already exist. Blake Jolley stated that not everyone can afford to be a homeowner and this development would allow for people to have options. Mr. Jolley stated that this development meets the same density requirements as a duplex, and that this development has over 4 acres of landscape. Mr. Jolley also stated that they are required by Idaho law to maintain water/irrigation rights to all property owners, and the 6ft privacy fence would be placed one foot onto their property for maintenance. Mr. Jolley stated that these types of developments are designed to be off a main artillery. Councilmember Lewis was concerned about land locking the land to the north. Public Works Director Rodney Burch stated that the Chubbuck Rd. access is not a public street but an access to this development. Councilmember Evans wanted it known that people that live in apartments are great family oriented people. Councilmember Evans was not convinced this development was the right fit for this area, and asked City Attorney Tom Holmes about the legal ramifications if approved. Mr. Holmes stated that there is a possibility the neighbors could bring this to court, because of the inconsistences in the City's Ordinances that need to be corrected. That's why Mr. Holmes asked city staff if they made any suggestions to the developer after the Land Use Meeting on how to move forward. Councilmember Lewis stated that there is personal property rights on both sides, and if you want to control development you need to own it. Councilmember Lewis wanted it known that the increase of property taxes is never a factor in his decision making. Councilmember Lewis felt like any type of development would increase traffic. Councilmember Lewis also stated that as a quasi-judicial body decision the Council is bound to hold the burden of proof on the applicant. Councilmember Lewis felt like the applicant had not met the burden of proof In City Codes 18.20.040, 18.20.040A, 18.20.040D, 18.28.040C #3, 4, and 7, 18.20.110, and 18.20.110G #3, and 6. GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. Approval of Sunset Townhomes Planned Unit Development (PUD). (Council will discuss the application and if it meets City code). Councilmember Evans motioned to deny the Sunset Townhomes planned unit development. Councilmember Hernandez seconded motion for denial. Roll Call: Evans -yes, Lewis -yes, Hernandez -yes, Baumeister -recused, motion passed. 2. Approval of Sunset Townhomes Preliminary Plat. (Council will discuss the application and if it meets City code). Councilmember Evans motioned to deny the Sunset Townhomes preliminary plat. Councilmember Hernandez seconded motion for denial. Roll Call: Lewis -yes, Hernandez -yes, Evans -yes, Baumeister -recused, motion passed. 3. Adoption of Ordinance XXX Police and Emergency Services Capital Plans and Impact Fees. (Council will discuss adopting chapter 17.28 to City code). Mayor England presented a separate Ordinance to approve the Police and Emergency Services capital plans and impact fees, as the Council works on the parks capital plan and impact fee. Councilmember Baumeister is in support of these fees but, doesn't want to separate these from the parks impact fee; and wanted to table this decision until the Council could have a special study session to discuss this more. Councilmember Lewis felt like there was still more discussion needed before proceeding. Councilmember Evans supported these fees and wanted the Council to approve these fees. Councilmember Hernandez didn't have any issues with these fees and wanted to proceed with approval. Councilmember Baumeister motioned to table adoption and hold a special study session on February 20, 2019 for further discussion. Councilmember Lewis seconded motion. Roll Call: Baumeister -yes, Evans -yes, Lewis -yes, Hernandez -no, motion passed. 4. Approval of Elected Officials Salaries. (Council will discuss the appropriate salary for elected officials). Councilmember Baumeister believed that with the increase of responsibilities and to attract qualified candidates in the future there needed to be an increase of salaries. Councilmember Hernandez felt like it was the Councils responsibility to think of the future and the proper pay associated. Councilmember Evans stated that the current pay and benefits were sufficient for the responsibilities associated with the position and should remain the same. Councilmember Baumeister motioned to raise the Mayor's salary to $60,846 and the Council salary to $7,961 starting in January 2020. Councilmember Hernandez seconded motion for approval. Roll Call: Evans -no, Lewis -yes, Hernandez -yes, Baumeister -yes, motion passed. CLAIMS: 1. City of Chubbuck claims for February 6, 2019 as presented to Mayor England and Council. Councilmember Evans motioned to approve the City of Chubbuck Claims. Councilmember Baumeister seconded motion for approval. Roll Call: Hernandez -yes, Baumeister -yes, Lewis -yes, Evans -yes, motion passed. ADJOURN: Mayor Kevin England adjourned at 10:00. r