Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 11, 2005 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council October 11, 2005 Page 22 of 42 methods of wiring those buildings, so for safety purposes and that the hereinafter erected was not for the building, but for the wiring itself. So, if we delete it, it's clearer to the inspector, it's clearer from enforcement, and so that was their request for those -- for that change. So, if the three ordinances you think are adequate to bring forth on your agenda next week, we can do that and, again, I will forward the U-turn ordinance to the transportation department and ACHD before we bring that back in front of you. De Weerd: Council, any comments? Bird: Type it out in the entirety and bring it forward, as far as I'm concerned. De Weerd: We will bring the three in front of you next week and once we get feedback from ACRD and ITD, we will bring back the U-turn portion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: On the last one it seems to me that the wording you have now creates yet another confusion. Could an inspector take that to mean that if they go and --afire inspector or anybody inspecting a building, say you don"t meet the standard, all buildings -- all commercial buildings are to be wired with metal raceway. So, it seems to me any new building or any remodel or any permitted electrical change in a commercial building hereinafter shall follow this, so there isn't the overzealous inspector saying you got to -- you're going to have to do this, even if you're not touching your electrical, if they are doing a plumbing job in a commercial building or something like that. Nary: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Rountree, I mean certainly that is subject to that interpretation and we can certainly try to clear up some of that language before we bring it back, so it's clear that it's -- you know, it's not to make people go retrofit existing buildings or existing things. I think what Mr. Freckleton has indicated to me was that where this was occurring is, essentially, in our Old Town area with a lot of conversions of homes into office spaces and those things and that was where the issue had arisen. But we can certainly bring that clarification -- Rountree: We know there is somebody crafty out there -- Nary: There is always a lawyer out there who will look for some loophole, so we will make sure we clear that up before you see it again. Thank you. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 05-040 Request fora Conditional Use Permit to modify the Conditions of Approval for CUP 03-050, in order to allow the existing building at 703 North Main Street to remain and to allow a Meridian Gity Gouncil October 11, 2005 Page 23 of 42 public use in the O-T zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by Farmers and Merchants State Bank -- 703 North Main Street: De Weerd: Thank you. We did pull Item G off the Consent Agenda and put it under Item 7-G. I believe I would turn this over to Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have a letter in front of you -- I just read it when I got here to the meeting. The Farmers and Merchants has requested that you reconsider the approval the other night -- that you made the other night. They do have two specific questions of concern, so -- one was with regard to the timing on rehearing it once the city is no longer the occupant of the structure and the other one is related to the cross-access agreement. I can answer any questions you have, otherwise, I don't have much to -- information to provide. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Anna? Does Mr. Slocum have any comment? Slocum: Goad evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. De Weerd: Please state your name and address for the record. Slocum: For the record, Craig Slocum, 250 South 5th, of CSHQA representing Farmers and Merchants. The two items -- and they are incorrectly numbered on that letter. I apologize. They are 1.6 and 1.7, instead of 1.5 and 1.6. And I will try to be brief. It's a long project, but it's -- I'll try to be brief. De Weerd: I'll give you three minutes. Slocum: Okay. The city desired to use the existing Farmers and Merchants building for office space and Farmers and Merchants stopped the process of demolishing it, so that that could happen. So, the conditional use needed to be modified simply for the reason to eliminate the condition that the building be demolished. What has come through the process is that new conditions have been added. That wasn't what Farmers and Merchants in theory agreed to. The building, as Farmers and Merchants has spent same money to update it to make it look nice and at this point has no desire to demolish it anytime. If they ever did that, they would I guess need to come back to this body. For a demolition permit? I don't think you do. But they do not want it to be a condition that that building, ante the city pulls out of their lease or ends their lease, that they have to demolish it or have to come back to this Council to request that they not demolish it. The second item is an access issue between Washington Federal and the bank. The plan, as it was approved through the City Council and PAZ in '03 had the parking as it exists today and there was a curb there. That's how it was approved. Just because the city's desire is that the building stay and Farmers and Merchants is willing to allow that, shouldn't open the door far the requirement to enter into cross-access agreements or to open that up. Farmers and Merchants is extremely concerned about the safety issue of traffic in that location. The only other condition that was added was to close off the old Meridian City Council October 11, 2005 Page 24 of 42 drive-thru between Main Street and the new parking field and Farmers is willing to do that. Other than that, I'm open far questions. De Weerd: Council -- or, Mr. Nary, I guess at this point I would ask you can we be discussing this? Does this need to be a listed agenda item for any Council discussion? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what you really have in front of you is a request to reconsider your prior action. Mr. Slocum has simply reiterated on the record what he's provided you in a written document as to what the basis far that request is. If the Council is inclined to want to do that, then, someone would need to make a motion to reconsider and set that for a date certain to hear that matter. Certainly, some of what he's brought may require at that juncture that if you agree to reconsider your decision and rescind your prior action, it may require you to remand it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission because of the conditions they placed upon it for their consideration and may require you to came up with new Findings, but if the Council is inclined to reconsider that based on what's been stated tonight and in the letter in front of you, then, all you would be doing is setting that far a date certain to make that heard. I think at that juncture, if you're going to reconsider actions, you may end up having to renotice the changes that you want to make, such as -- the original request was simply to delay the demolition of the building, not to remove that entirely. That's a change of circumstance that, again, may require you to remand it back to Planning and Zoning, so it can be renoticed to do that. That wasn't what was considered previously. De Weerd: Council -- and I guess in light of that, we would ask ACRD a comment, too. When we considered this, I wrote ACRD that this was temporary, because they were assessing new impact fees because of the addition to this. I was requested by the bank to write that letter, that this was just temporary and that those impact fee reconsiderations that the bank was being asked to pay should be delayed, because of the temporary nature of this. I would have to, then, ask for comment from ACHD. I guess that would be something that we probably do need to put back to Planning and Zoning, but I look for your direction on this, Council. Canning: Madam Mayor, regarding the remand back to Planning and Zoning, I'd have to check the notices, but Ithink -- I know when Planning and Zoning heard it, I really think they weren't considering it as a delay in the demolition, they were just considering it as that building remaining. So, we can check the notices. But I think they treated it as if it were -- the building were staying and that's why you have the conditions for the cross-access agreement and the close of the driveway. De Weerd: And that is probably the different levels that we were operating an, because it was -- when I came to you to get a budget for some of the work that needed to be done for the city to occupy that building, it was temporary in nature and that is why I appealed to ACHD for that fee waiver. So, this does change it and what we understood. don't know what was posted or what was discussed at Planning and Zoning, but that is why the city initiated the application, why we paid far it, and so this is different. So, Council, I would look to you far your direction on this. Meridian City Council October 11, 2005 Page 25 of 42 Rountree: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we reconsider Item 7-G and schedule it for Council discussion on October 25th. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to reconsider this on October 25th. Is there any further discussion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Do we have to notice this, Bill, or just reconsider? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, since you're reconsidering the item on tonight's agenda, all you would be doing, then, is deciding if your original decision stands or same other decision needs to be made and what would happen from there. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Question. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: VAC 05-011 Request fora Vacation of Irrigation Easements for Bonito Subdivision by Dave Evans Construction -- 3041 East Copper Point Drive: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 8 is Public Hearing VAC 05-011. I will open the Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, if I could just ask one clarification on the previous item. Sometimes we find that when we get to these reconsideration hearings you don't have the information you would like. So, is it appropriate to ask what you would like -- what information you would like at that hearing? Is it okay if I ask that even?