Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 25, 2005 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council October 25, 2005 Page 22 of 42 Rountree: Having heard what we have about this situation and not hearing any extenuating circumstances, I would move that we support our standard practice on this particular process that the city goes through of turn offs and assess the turn-off fee and that we not be in a situation to waive it in this situation. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to continue with our policy and assess the late fee. Any discussion? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Then, I'm assuming by the motion that you're .simply going to ask for those findings and decision to be returned to you the next week for final adoption, since it requires it be in writing? Bird: Yes. Rountree: Yes. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Wixson: Thanks for you time. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Wixson. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Reconsideration of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 05-040 Request for a 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 public use in the O-T zone far Farmers and Merchants State Bank by Farmers and Merchants State Bank - 703 North Main Street: De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 9 is reconsideration of Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for CUP 05-040. Mr. Nary or Mrs. Canning? Meridian City council October 25, 2005 Page 23 of 42 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to give you a brief update from my staffs part. I think the two options before you tonight -- and there may be others that Mr. Nary can tell you, but the two options I think you're considering is whether to set this for a future City Council hearing date or whether to remand it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission far them to hear it. And regarding the latter, I did want to give you some information. The public notice for this project was listed as a request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify the conditions of approval for CUP 03- 050, in order allow the existing building at 703 North Main Street to remain and to allow a public use in the OT zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by Farmers and Merchants State Bank. So, it was not listed as a temporary -- as a temporary use, it was listed as that building would remain. Then the staff report was structured that way as well. So, I believe that the Planning and Zoning Commission, in their deliberations, felt like this building would be here, that it wouldn't go away. So, I just would suggest that I don't think it's necessary to remand it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. De Weerd: Okay. I guess my confusion is is that is not the intent that Council asked this application to go through. It was to go through to extend -- to delay as an interim use a condition to demolish the building and so, you know, how it started through the process kind of was different than how it was initiated. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I will take responsibility for that. I had difficulty in how to process a modification for a CU as a temporary time frame, so instructed my staff to just treat it that the building would remain. If Farmers and Merchants wanted to take it out later, they could take it out later. I think there has been some subsequent confusion on site issues related to this that made it seem, from Farmers and Merchants, that it was going to be temporary, but as far as the application has gone -- and we did prepare with -- the application with the assistance of Farmers and Merchants, so I take responsibility for that. It doesn't -- I just think that P&Z saw it as a -- all I was trying to say tonight is that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed it as a permanent building. That doesn't mean that Council has all of a sudden lost their authority to grant conditions on it, it's still a Conditional Use Permit. So, I just wanted to clarify that, haw P&Z reviewed it. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: So, the action is simply whether or not we want to reconsider the findings? De Weerd: Mr. Nary: Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, that would be -- your third option that you -- you have already committed to Findings that are before you. The request is to reconsider those. Those Findings are three things. One was to require across- access between this parcel and the adjacent parcel for Washington Federal Bank. To require that they permanently block the drive-thru that enters from Main Street to the rear of this parcel, so that no vehicle traffic can either come from Main Street through Meridian City Council October 25, 2005 Page 24 of 42 the parcel ar exit out onto Main Street .through this -- through the former drive-thru of the building. And the last Finding that you made was that at the paint when the city vacates the use of this building, at that point in the future you would, then, reconsider the viability of the building remaining or whether or not it would have to be torn down. I think as Madam Mayor stated, it was simply a delay in the requirement to remove the building today. You can leave those Findings if you wish. The request was to reconsider them. To hear from the applicant is why we are here tonight as to why you would do that. I think as Mrs. Canning stated, one option was to remand. Her recommendation is not to remand, because they wouldn't have any more information to provide you on a remand. The last is if you wish to reconsider your Findings, then, my recollection would be to hold a new hearing, provide notice, because it was not your impression at the hearing -- and, again, at the hearing on that in front of you, Farmers and Merchants did not appear to make that request. So, for you to, then, set it for a new hearing to make, again, a decision on their request now, which is to permanently leave the building, and they have some other requests for changes to what was determined by Planning and Zoning regarding cross-access. So, yeah, you have a couple of different options, Councilmember Rountree, but that's basically it in a nutshell of what you have got. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: And, certainly, I'm going to ask for a little bit of direction from the legal staff. The application is -- we have heard testimony -- or we have heard the director say that it was heard at Planning and Zoning differently than it was heard at the City Council level. My understanding is this was acity-initiated process, because of the good will of the applicant that -- allowing us to utilize for a city office. But along the way somehow it changed and, as I understand, there was some fees that were waived because it was a city-initiated process; is that true, Anna? Canning: Yes. I believe you did waive the application fees. Wardle: Okay. And the Mayor at the last meeting talked about some commitments as to the part of ACRD. Mr. Nary, one of the things that I certainly don't want to cause is any additional -- we want to be -- in my opinion, Farmers and Merchants has been great far us in allowing us to utilize that and don't want to cause any ill will and that sort of thing, but it appears to me that this application and the comments that we have received are contrary to what we thought they were and I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with proceeding along this in the manner that the city has brought it before this Council. Are there other options for us in that respect? Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, I mean you certainly can hold these Findings. If you think a different application -- I think what Meridian City Cpuncil October 25, 2005 Page 25 of 42 Mrs. Canning has indicated is that the application -- if you were to remand it or hold these -- or hold these Findings in abeyance until Farmers and Merchants directly applied for this conditional use modification with what they are requesting today -- the application itself wouldn't be any different and the notice to the public for the Planning and Zoning part of this process wouldn't be any different. So, I think you could certainly do that, you could probably get the same result by -- if that's a desire to you to fully hear this issue about the building staying permanently, rather than being delayed for that ultimate decision, you could -- we could probably do the same thing by noticing up a new hearing on this CUP modification. Because although -- what you're saying is is what the Council viewed it as is different than what you thought it was supposed to be. The application itself and the notice to the public was with the building staying as a permanent facility. So, the public notice has been satisfied. I think what you're saying is the Council's notice wasn't staffed and that can be done through another hearing, rather than another application. So, you certainly have the ability to remand it to begin the process over. I just don't think it would look differently. Wardle: And, Mr. Nary, maybe I can qualify. Certainly that was one of my concerns, but also the fee waiver is a concern and, Mrs. Canning, as a general rule of thumb, when applicants come into change conditional use in a commercial setting, the City of Meridian, as a general rule, doesn't waive that fee; is that correct? Canning: Correct. Wardle: And, counsel, that's my consideration. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: I don't know -- and maybe Mrs. Canning can answer. If we were to hold another hearing -- did the city absorb the cast of noticing previously, since the city was -- had waived the fees? And if we were going to hold another hearing, we'd have to notice that up and there, obviously, would be costs associated with that. Canning: Yes, sir. Nary: To which? Canning: We collected no fees, which is typical with other city departments. We don't typically charge other city departments. But, yes, also that there is an additional hearing fee under -- well, I'm sorry. There is one under the UDC, but this application came in before that. But I believe the clerk charges for additional notice in hearings. And he's nodding his head. Berg: Madam Mayor, yes, we have in the past actually invoiced or billed what it cost us for public notices in the newspaper and the mail out noticing. Meridian City Council October 25, 2005 Page 26 of 42 Nary: So, Councilmember Wardle, I don't know if that answers your question, but that's certainly an option, if there were to be another hearing, that you could certainly require the applicant to absorb the cost of that fee. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Let me see if I gat this clear. And I'm not sure I do. Originally when we approved the CUP, the building was to go down after a certain amount of time in moving into the new building. Then, between the city and Farmers and Merchants, we decided that we could use that until we get a new City Hall for property. We remodeled it, brought it up to code, which -- and at that point we had to run a -- change the CUP to allow that building to stand; am I nat right? Canning: Correct. Bird: So, what this -- what we are doing here is allowing the building to stay until it's no longer needed for a rental for the city. Is that the time period or is it just -- Canning: Your current Findings are to revisit the issue of whether the building should stay or go at the termination of the city's lease. Bird: And whose request was that? Canning: I believe the Mayar added that to the condition -- Bird: I beg your pardon? Canning: I believe the Mayor added that condition Council. De Weerd: Although I didn't make the motion. Canning: No. I'm sorry. It was -- Bird: You get credit for it. It was put an by Mayor and De Weerd: I'll take responsibility. I guess, Mr. Bird, it was because of the confusion that we had at the time of the intent and what the application was all about. We heard through the grapevine -- and it was not stated anywhere -- that there seemed to be an intent to keep the building permanently and we continued to operate under the assumption that it was an interim fix and to answer that question we put the condition that it would be determined upon us vacating it. So, if the applicant -- if the bank wanted to change it, then, that gave them an opportunity to change it. Meridian City Gouncil October 25, 2005 Page 27 of 42 Bird: That was what I recall happening and so what are we -- isn't that what the decision of order says right now? Canning: Yes, sir. Bird: What did we get it back for? De Weerd: Because you agreed last week to reconsider it. Bird: Well, because we had been told that it was not by the applicant, we were told that it wasn't noticed right or something and we had to take it -- is that not right? Nary: No. Madam Mayor, could I help? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Go ahead, Bill. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no. What happened is in the request to reconsider, the applicant had two concerns with your original Findings that are still pending. One was the cross-access to the adjacent property and the second was the revisiting of the demolition of the building at the point the city vacated. The applicant requested in their reconsideration that their intent was to always leave the building there and so they didn't want that condition placed on this CU that you would revisit it later. And the discrepancy was in what you have said, the Mayor said, and Councilmember Wardle said, that confusion, that wasn't what -- what's been stated tonight, that wasn't the Council's impression of what was in front of them. Now that has been placed in front of you have as a reconsideration. Again, you can hear from the applicant if they have more specifics about it, but that's what was in their request for a re-consideration. Bird: Yeah. I understand, that's what I understood, you know, and I realize they want to keep it up. De Weerd: I guess where the confusion came is all of our correspondence -- and when I brought it to you for consideration far office space, it was all in writing as an interim -- or as an interim use. And so that's led to our confusion. Bird: Madam Mayor -- and I agree with you, but I also agree with Councilman Wardle that if there is anymore costs involved, they could pay it, because I'm telling you, we are paying lease payments over there. And I know they are pretty cheap, but they are still lease payments. They are not cost payments. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here tonight? Would you like to make comment? Donnell: Do you dare? Meridian City Council October 25, 2005 Page 28 of 42 De Weerd: As you can see, there is a considerable amount of confusion from when the intent changed and if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Thierra: Steve Thierra, 7912 McKayla, Nampa. De Weerd: Thank you. Thierra: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilmembers. I confess, I am thoroughly as confused as we all may be. My understanding at the point from Mr. Slocum at CSHQA, our architect, at the point that the original request to adjust the CUP, was that at same point as the city was finished using the property, that the bank would, then, determine, well, should we take it down, should we not take it down. We were under the impression that the pedestrian park was either still a requirement or was not a requirement and so we were hoping to get some guidance from Mr. Slocum. The conditions on September 27th caught us totally by surprise. We had no knowledge -- we didn't know that the conditions were going to be placed on the bank that at the time that the city's use of the property was done, that we would be required to reapply to keep the building and, then, to install the pedestrian -- or to demolish the building and, then, install the pedestrian park. Our feeling was that we know what all the costs were this year to do both the demolition and to install the pedestrian park, we don't know what those costs will be in whatever year that this situation would came up again. So, the reason we asked for the reconsideration was to have the hearing, so that we could examine all of the different questions again. The bank understands -- and we know that the city has been very fair with us. We would not object to having to pay an application fee and, you know, the normal process should prevail. The other issues that Madam Mayor stepped up and helped us out with ACHD on the fees and we appreciate that and we realize that this may cause that to change, in which case we would be liable far the ACHD fees that we were originally assessed. De Weerd: I guess just to give my take on what I think you just asked, is that when we vacate the building, you have the opportunity at that time to modify the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit, which was to remove the building and put in the pedestrian mall. If you desire at that time not to move that direction, you can apply to the city to change the Conditional Use Permit at that time. Thierra: My understanding is that's the order that's in front us now. If we were to reapply, we would reapply on the basis of keeping the building permanently and -- but we realize that there is some discussion on the pedestrian park and those things. The other issues, the easement and the closing off of that one entryway, are minor. De Weerd: And as I understand it, that's kind of a separate application, that they can go through at anytime to change those. Nary: When you say those, Madam Mayor, I'm sorry, you mean the request to leave the building? Can they come -- if you left your Findings as they are -- Meridian City Council October 25, 2005 Page 29 of 42 De Weerd: Uh-huh. Nary: -- could they come back and reapply tomorrow to leave the building permanently? De Weerd: Yes. Nary: Yes, they can. De Weerd: And to remove the pedestrian mall. Nary: Correct. They could come and reapply for that. Right now all you have done is left that decision for a point in the future. Yes. De Weerd: Does that give you clarity? Thierra: Somewhat. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, if I can maybe try to help clarify here. Mr. Nary, can we vacate our Findings on this application and allow the applicant to proceed in whichever manner they would like to, which would include applying through our normal process, paying whatever fees that may be, and let them drive the process on their property? De Weerd: Mr. Nary? Nary: I'm thinking. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess you can. The problem is is you have had -- you have had a Public Hearing at the Planning and Zoning level with a recommendation, you have had a Public Hearing in front of you with Findings, and now you would be vacating that and so what they are left with is what is originally under the CU, which is to tear the building dawn. If you want to basically go back to square one, you have the ability to do that. They would be required to, then, apply, because their direction would be to tear the building down now. Donnell: There goes your office, Mr. Nary. Nary: But you're right. Could you do that? Yes, you have the ability to do that. Wardle: There was a time frame in there and, if I'm correct, it was longer than the appointed period, which is before us today; is that correct? Nary: No. I believe it was less. It was when the other building was built Rountree: Occupied. Meridian City Council October 25, 2pp5 Page 30 of 42 Nary: They were supposed to tear it down. Wardle: My mistake. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I can't -- with his testimony, I can't see why what we got in front of us is harmful to us. I'm for passing this as it is. If they don't -- if they want to come back after we vacate it, which we hope we will in '07. At that point, then, we can decide whether the building goes or stays. At that point -- and he's got a good point. In '07 it's -- the cost is different, what it's going to cost to do all this stuff, so we need to take that into consideration. So, I don't see anything with what we got wrong now, is to pass this on, as long as the bank is agreeable to it, and evidently they are and go on with it, these Findings. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I guess I don't understand that and I'm getting more confused, but it seems to me that the bank has lived up to their end of the bargain. Conditional Use Permit requires them to demolish that site and build a pedestrian park. They have asked for a modification, so the building can stay, because the city wants to rent the space and now we are telling them, yeah, that's okay, but you still have to hold up the end of your -- other end of your bargain, you got to tear down the building and build the park when we are done. To me that's not -- not good business on the part of the bank and I think it's an unfair treatment on the part of the city. If I were the bank, given those circumstances, I would say, okay, your lease is up, we are going to tear it dawn and build a park, because it's going to cost us less today than it is going to cast us in a couple of years. So, I think we have got an issue here. We have got to resolve it. I think the bank needs to understand what their liability is going to be in a year or two, so they can make a decision about whether or not they want to lease that building. Maybe I'm confused, but I wouldn't want to be put in the bank's -- I'd like to have the bank's money, but I wouldn't want to be put in their position. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think these Findings state just that, Charlie. It just says that when we vacate it they have a chance to come back and at that point either do it or don't. Rountree: But -- Meridian Gity Council October 25, 2005 Page 31 of 42 Bird: And -- I mean they are the ones that got up and requested that we take the bank out. Now that there has been some remodeling and stuff done and they can probably get 16 dollars a square foot, yeah, as you said, they are bankers. They know the dollar. And I don't blame them. And you know -- but that gives them the opportunity to come. I can't -- you know, Ithink -- I don't think they want -- would stand right here and tell you today they don't want to take it down, maybe, in two years. I don't know. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, did you have -- I heard you over there. Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The issue of permanency is really the issue of question here. And that's -- and the expectation and I agree, wholeheartedly with Mr. Rountree that the Bank's lived up to their expectation, has always been a good partner with the city and I think the difficulty that I see or -- other than the issue of permanency, is there were two additional requirements. One was across-access agreement and the other is a curb, if I understand that correctly. Mr. Nary? Nary: Blocking the drive-thru. Wardle: Okay. If we were to remove those two specific conditions, the only condition left is the issue of permanency, which the bank can certainly come back at anytime -- tomorrow orafter the Findings and modify; is that correct? Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, might want to ask Mrs. Canning. I mean we have another little goofy wrinkle about this and it's because this existing use and conditional use is based on our old code, not our current code. If you recall, part of the reason for the original application was because we had a public use for the building, with the city being the occupant. That went away when the UDC passed. So, not making a decision on that conditional use now may be more problematic a year or two or three from now. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I don't think that's what he said. Nary: Oh. De Weerd: He said go ahead, drop the additional conditions for the CUP modification, and just extend the life of the building until it's vacated and, then, anything else will be dealt with through another application, if that is the desire to change. Nary: Right. But that's the problem with the later application. Maybe Mrs. Canning can give you a little more about that. Canning: If you were -- if they were to come back tomorrow with a new application, it would be the same application that we have processed, but asking to remove the condition that you're considering adding regarding the temporary use. But if they were Meridian City Council Qctober 25, 2005 Page 32 pf 42 to come in and say what do I need to do to have this use here, the answer is you need to have a tenant improvement of a certificate -- a tenant improvement is all. So, I'm not sure what they would be applying for, other than exactly what's before you tonight, which would be a modification to their original CU. Their modification was turned in before the adoption of the new UDC. Anew application would not be -- what the code generally says is that you have a use that -- the only thing I can really rely on is the nonconforming. It's conditionally allowed, but it's kind of the same thing and it says if you were nonconforming before, now you're conforming, you're conforming. So, I'm not sure what they would be actually -- I'm not sure what they would be applying for. De Weerd: So, what you're saying, because of the new UDC, that they wouldn't have to come through and request a change to their Conditional Use Permit to remove the building and put in the pedestrian mall? Canning: They still have their old -- are you suggesting that they come in and modify their original one or the one that you are considering approving now? De Weerd: The one that their -- would approve tonight, if they so chose, is only going to modify the -- or delay the removal of the building condition. I'll let Mr. Wardle suggest it himself, but that's what I assumed. But if they approve Findings, drop the two extra conditions that P8~Z put on it, just extend the life of the building to be removed at a later date, they could come back and through their own initiated conditional use modification, and request that that removal of the building and the pedestrian mall be modified or taken off. That would be a separate application by them. Canning: Yeah. It just sounds odd, but I guess it would -- I guess if we took it in, it would be just -- it would be decided by our Planning and Zoning Commission at a minimum. De Weerd: And that's fine. That's the new UDC -- Canning: But without a termination date on a condition, I don't understand why they would ever come in. De Weerd: Well, there is a termination date based on action tonight on the Findings in front of them. Canning: Oh. Okay. I -- I give up. I'm confused. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council October 25, 2005 Page 33 of 42 Nary: Yeah. And not to try to make it more complicated -- I don't know that I could, but the only thing that -- the only other thing, I guess, to add to your discussion is that right now the only -- those two new conditions regarding cross-access and no access onto Main Street or from Main Street, if you remove those conditions, when that shed is gone, then, you will have vehicular traffic driving in and out through that where there is one exit door out of that building that people walk through, so -- the rear part of the building. So, if you remove it, then, you may have a safety condition that might be problematic, that is now the only thing that's requiring them to abate that safety condition is the condition that was required by you. De Weerd: And that shed is there illegally. Nary: Well -- and it's supposed to be gone shortly, so that's only my concern as the tenant, is having people exiting the building with cars driving right next to them. De Weerd: Okay. Think of yourself. Nary: And my staff. De Weerd: Do you have anything to add? Thierra: Madam Mayor and Council, I would agree with Mr. Nary that that access to and from Main Street does need to be blocked. We don't have any objection to that. De Weerd: And Iguess -- I'm not going to throw in another discussion point, but -- so Council could move forward with the Findings, drop the cross-access and let the bank mull over what they want to do and come back through their own application process, should you choose to adopt these Findings in some farm tonight. That's about as simple we can get it. Nary: It's very lawyer-like simple, Madam Mayor. That's was very good. Rountree: I don't know whether that's an -- Bird: I don't know whether that's simple or not. Rountree: -- an insult or a compliment. De Weerd: Dean, he said I don't know if that was an insult or a compliment. Thierra: I have nothing further. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. You have a couple of different ways you can take this, Council. You can approve the Findings tonight or reconsider it at a later date. Rountree: Madam Mayor'? Meridian City Council October 25, 2005 Page 34 of 42 De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Just a point. It seems to me there is enough confusion that we are just going to have a series of these actions that are going to compound on one another. My preference is just to have an opportunity for the applicant to be heard. They did have a previous opportunity, they were not here, and we acted on some assumptions, on some information that was provided that may not have been quite to the point. My preference is that we reset the hearing far reconsideration and make sure that there is sufficient time that the bank knows what it is they do and don't want to do and if, in fact, they want to keep permanent status of the building, then, there are other conditions in the previous conditional use -- in the previous Conditional Use Permit that need to be modified, get it done so a Council twa terms from now won't have to go through what we just went through this evening and I'm still a bit confused as to where we are. Having been on the receiving end of those kinds of things, it is difficult, as the years progress. So, my preference is let's get it cleaned up for everybody's interest and reset this for hearing the 15th of November. Donnell: Is that a motion? Rountree: That's my motion. Wardle: I will second that motion, if I may have additional discussion. De Weerd: Well, by seconding you granted yourself the right to discuss Wardle: Perfect. Robert's rules. I agree that we need to get this resolved. My -- some of my earlier expectations and some comments made on the part of the applicant, I suggest a compromise that I think will fit into our -- into what the city is looking for, as well as what the bank is looking far, and that is let's reconsider this, let's talk about the merits of a permanent -- have the bank come back, present all of their requests, the permanency of that structure, and to have them bear the cost of an additional noticing for Public Hearing, I believe that would satisfy some of my concerns, and let's hear it and let's decide it and do away with any of the confusion. Rountree: The maker of the motion would agree to the statement about fees. De Weerd: Okay. So, the motion is to put this on for reconsideration November 15th and assess the additional noticing fees to the bank, which would now be, technically, the applicant. Okay. Mr. Berg, do you want to call roll on this. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.