Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 03-21 PreMeridian City Pre-Council Meeting March 21, 2000 The Special Pre-Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:35 p.m. on Tuesday, March 21, 2000, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie. Members present: Bob Corrie, Cherie McCandless, Tammy deWeerd, Ron Anderson, Keith Bird. Others present: Bill Gordon, Bill Nichols, Gary Smith, Steve Siddoway, Janice Smith, Will Berg, Reta Cunningham, Ken Bowers. Corrie: It’s 6:35 p.m., I’ll open the Pre-Council hearing on Tuesday, March 21, 2000. All right, go ahead, Janice. 17. Department Reports: A. City Treasurer – Janice Smith Treasurer’s Report: Smith: Thank you, Mayor and Council, for letting me come in early. We’ve got four reports, the other one’s coming right to you. We’re trying to get the first one I’m going over is your balance sheet. Anderson: Which one is that? Smith: The one that says balance sheet. Bird: The one that says balance sheet as of 2-29. Anderson: I’ve got an assortment of a three-inch stack of paper here. Smith: That’s the summary of all the cash investments that the City of Meridian has by fund, general, building and enterprise. On the second sheet you will notice that there is a discrepancy on our investments what we have versus what Buffington Moore has. They got it to us last week, but we didn’t have time to review it. Usually we find the mistake, we usually find it and usually the error is on their side. So we should have that by next week and have it corrected. Anderson: What is the error? Smith: They have faxed us figures and then they gave us the report which was different. When they faxed us something to make the general entries for an interest rate, and then all of a sudden we get the report from them and it’s different, so we make them – they’re going to come in here this week and we’re going to say, okay, which ones do you want us to go by? The ones that we got faxed or by your report? So I’ll have Reta send you a memo on where we found the error. Usually we find it – Anderson: Is what you’re saying is this $30 million if it’s supposed to match the $38 million? What numbers are different? Smith: Well, we’re just off by $32,000. Anderson: Which number’s that? Smith: Go by your balance sheet. That’s what they have given us, but if you look – Anderson: This front sheet? Smith: Yes, the front sheet. Go by your balance sheet; but if you try to compare it to the investment report, it won’t work. If you went and got your calculator and added them all up, there is a summary too if you looked at the summary sheet on the front. But they got it to us late last week and we just didn’t have time to review what we were -- working on some stuff for the Police Department. So if you have any questions on that, you’ll have to check with Reta because I’ll be gone six weeks. The next thing we’re going over is your revenue expenditure report. We’ve modified that just a little bit. We – if you read this, it says that we met with the Police Department, and I think if you look at the next sheet, this is what’s in the paper, was posted in the paper. We now balance. Our revenues now balance the expenditures with the adjustments that Reta has made on the comments where she’s made these changes. The Police Department is what was in the paper; we set up a fund by itself on the variance – McCandless: Where are you now? Smith: On this sheet here, on the second page. Anderson: Page 1? Smith: Yes, it’d be Page 1, the first one is – deWeerd: It’s the cover and it’s the first page after the cover. Smith: Okay. Look on Page 8 of that report. We set up a non-operating cost under other government; so it’s still in general, and at the end of the year when we do – part of it would probably go to a budget amendment. Bird: Now wait a minute. What is this for? This is for the Police Department (inaudible)? Smith: No. That’s general. That’s just general. It’s not allocated. You decide at the end of this – Bird: That’s what I thought. Okay. Smith: That’s what the variance ended up being after we matched what was in the paper. By looking at these departments, you can match – this now matches what was posted in the paper. Okay. Since we’re still going over budget stuff, I’m going to hand out now the budget calendar. This is the budget procedures that we’re trying to establish for the City of Meridian. You’d had some changes you wanted done in the last meeting, and we’ve made those changes so that you could review this again, walk through it again, and come back maybe at the next – nothing can be done this meeting, but maybe next month get it done and we can have our attorneys get together and do a resolution so we can have some procedures. We are working right now on the software to get this going by May. Hopefully we’ll have it done before then, but we want to make sure that everything works. I know you guys didn’t have time to go over – we just finished it today. Anderson: (inaudible) disk then, or something they can do – Smith: Yes. All in the same format. Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the first issue is finding a date for the hearing. We have to have that in to the County soon. I think it’s April 30 that we have to have it in. We need to look at your personal calendars and set that up toward the end of August, very first part of September at the latest. Anderson: Maybe the first Council meeting in April or something? Berg: If you adopt this, that’s fine. We just need to look at those calendars so we can all make sure we can attend those pubic hearings. Smith: So can you – the Council and Mayor, there are some blank areas here for July. It says July, question, question, question. We need you to look at your calendars to see what would work with everybody to get with the Department Heads to go over the budget. I think Ron suggested maybe take a day off instead of trying to do it in the evening, but that’s – as soon as you get those for us, we can plug those in. Everything else worked for us. So if you have any questions on that, you can get those to Reta. Anderson: Then isn’t the AIC sponsoring some type of a budget seminar that tells you how to prepare them and how to present them to the public? Smith: That’s April 10th if anybody needs to go to that, there is a workshop. It’s on our calendar. I think you need to have that in to them early so – Anderson: I think the form is in there. Corrie: I’ve got a bunch of those forms. Bird: I think we had them in our boxes, didn’t we? Berg: I received a fax a week and-a-half ago that I got the information; we need to get those in, and I have been faxing them in as I get them so we can get signed up. Smith: If anybody can’t make it, we usually makes copies of everything we get and get it to everybody. Reta signed up to go to that also. This is the last thing I have is a wage report. Councilman Bird requested that I do a wage report for every month, and I’ll break this out next month. On the last page is the Department Summary. So this next report I’ll extend that Department Summary into what the costs were for regular wages, what the costs are for the overtime even though it does add it, but (inaudible) little formula in there to extend it. It kind of gives you an idea of how many employees we have in each department, too. So if you could go over this one, also, because it’s the first time we’ve done this, to make some comments if you want to see something different that we could add and get it changed. So looking in this, it looks like the base wages are $380,006 and overtime was $25,400. I think that’ll change now with the full-time fire – with three full-time fire going to their 24-hour shift. I hope to see a change in that. So as you take these home tonight and don’t have anything to do after the meeting, and you have questions, get to Reta in the morning and she can – Corrie: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Bird: I have none. Smith: Thank you. (inaudible discussion amongst Council members) Item I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-002 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.029 acres to L-O and R-8 by Centers Construction, Inc. -–west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview Avenue: Anderson: I actually had a question about – Corrie: Oh, Centers – Item I? Centers Construction, is that the one you’re talking about? Bird: Which one, Ron? Corrie: Item I. Anderson: It’s not actually in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, but it wasn’t on their annexation, but it was on their preliminary plat. The issue that Tammy was talking about – the pedestrian access? Did our staff ever work anything out? Corrie: Steve? You can talk about it when? Item C. Continued from March 7, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law AZ 99-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven Subdivision by Dan Wood / D.W., Inc. – west of Eagle Road between Overland and East Victory: Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, I actually have several items to go over regarding the Consent Agenda, and I was just wondering if you’d like to run through those quickly. The first item is Item C, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Woodhaven. The applicant has filed for reconsideration of the R-4 zone that was recommended, and he is being heard tonight for the plat, No. 10, on the regular agenda. So I would recommend that C be moved Item 10A. Corrie: 10 A or B? Bird: You’ve got to have it first, the plat. Corrie: You have to have it first, but one of the things that Councilwoman deWeerd was that she wanted to see the preliminary plat before she – Siddoway: What I would do is do my presentation about both issues simultaneously, and then the annexation and zoning would need to be acted on first because if the R-4 goes through, then the plat would be out of compliance, and so we need to deal with that as Item A, but I think the whole presentation needs to be made at one time. That’s Item C. I’m recommending moving it to 10A. Item D. Tabled from March 7, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Adult Entertainment Ordinance relating to zoning schedule: Siddoway: Item D is the adult entertainment ordinance. In the last City Council meeting, that had been – the motion was to move that to the regular agenda for discussion. I believe Councilwoman Tammy deWeerd wanted some discussion on the item, needed it moved off of the Consent Agenda, so I simply bring that up because I saw it in the minutes of the last meeting. deWeerd: Has the attorney responded to that discussion on the adult entertainment ordinance? If we could (inaudible) designated zones? He sent us a memo on something different. Anderson: It basically says that the one (inaudible) is grandfathered (inaudible) a different zoning. deWeerd: What was raised at our last meeting, Bill, was we had three designated zones, and we would like to drop two of those off. I believe Eric was going to look into that. Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd and Council members, Mayor Corrie, the short answer to that question is that you can have it allowed in only one zone if that’s what you choose so long as there is property available in that zone designation for the business. What you can’t do is allow in a zone where there’s no available and/or opportunity to conduct that kind of business. deWeerd: I believe that’s what Eric responded that we just need new Findings, I guess, with that zone. Nichols: If that’s your pleasure, after you put it on the – if you have it as part of your discussion on the regular agenda, you can direct us to amend the Ordinance accordingly and drop out the ones that you don’t want. I think there is an issue that, I don’t know if it’s been put into the record, but there just has to be available space; for example, if you’re going to put it in an industrial zone as long as there’s industrial zone land available for somebody to construct that business so if staff says, yes, it is available – Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to say if we were relegating it to regional shopping center districts or mineral extraction district, we’d probably have an issue with that, but there’s probably plenty of industrial area that’s vacant and available. deWeerd: So we need to move that to the regular agenda, correct? Thank you. Bird: It’d be No. 16B? Corrie: We’ve got Executive Session, 15 and possible action, 16. (inaudible) Executive Session first and you’d come out – Bird: Or do you want to change it to 14B, Mayor, and we’d get it out of the way before we go into Executive Session. Siddoway: I’m about to give you a 14B, so you might want to make it 14C or 15A. Nichols: Mayor Corrie, members of the Council, if I may throw my two bits worth in for Mr. Berg’s behalf. I think it’d be easier just to call it No. 18 and add it at the end. It’s – rather than to try to find it underneath a public hearing on some other issue or something, make it – move it to a separate number. Corrie: Okay, so we move D from Consent – No. 18. Item E. Tabled from March 7, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 81,000 s.f. mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC – 1230 East Overland Road: Item 14. Tabled from March 7, 2000: Ordinance No. : AZ 99-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 7.25 acres to C-G by Overland Mini-Storage, LLC: Siddoway: Okay. Item E on the Consent Agenda is Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Conditional Use Permit on Overland Mini Storage. We have met with the applicant several times and still have some outstanding issues as you will hear on Item – regular agenda Item No. 14 which is where they’ve tabled the Ordinance. We would like to move these Findings to 14A where I could make a presentation about the project and any outstanding issues that remain there. Item E would become 14A. Item I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-002 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.029 acres to L-O and R-8 by Centers Construction, Inc. -–west side of Locust Grove ¼ mile north of Fairview Avenue: Siddoway: Next, Item I is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Centers Construction. I believe this is being discussed. We do have revised Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. The revised – yes. The applicant and staff did meet as requested by Council at their last meeting. We have worked out the outstanding issues. You should have received packets yesterday with that information. I believe there are no outstanding issues that either staff or the applicant has on them. You may want to put it in the regular agenda just to allow the applicant a chance to comment, but we have met; they have had a chance to review them. I don’t believe there are any outstanding issues on them. Just want to point that out to make sure you realize you’re acting on the revised set and not the original set of Findings. Bird: Mr. Mayor, that one, I, maybe we should move it to 7A in front of the Conditional Use Permit. Siddoway: That is for the same project, so that would work easily. Bird: I think that’s the one Councilman deWeerd had questions on. Anderson: Mr. Mayor, Steve, if I could speak – you weren’t at the last meeting, but on both of these projects, Item I, the Centers Construction, and the mini storage, the issue was really that we don’t want to sit in the City Council meeting and debate things that ought to be worked out at the staff level. I guess if this is coming back up and the landscaping is still an issue, I really don’t want to hear it tonight until you guys can work that out. Siddoway: On Centers, we have the issues worked out. On overland Mini Storage, staff’s position is we recommend that it be remanded back to Planning and Zoning because their revised landscape plans have significant modifications to what was reviewed by them and approved in those meetings. That’s going to be what we recommend on that because we have worked – we have gone through four versions of this landscape plan and cannot – so far they’re unwilling to shorten the buildings to allow buffer along the Nine Mile Creek. I don’t know if you want the details, but since it is design issues and it is a design issue that is a modification of what was recommended to you and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission , we would recommend that it be remanded back to them for a decision unless you feel you can make the decision tonight. Anderson: But the issue was that at the time they originally submitted, they didn’t know there was a sewer easement and they can’t plant in that sewer easement and stuff like that? Siddoway: Correct. Anderson: I really think those kinds of issues ought to be worked out back at the staff level and not tie up the meeting time to debate those. Siddoway: I agree. If you’re saying that we should do it as just as staff without the Planning and Zoning Commission or – we have tried to do that, and we are at an impasse, basically. Anderson: At the time when it went through Planning and Zoning, was the issue about the sewer and the easement, was that known? Siddoway: So it’s basically new information? Siddoway: It was new information that was submitted with the final plat that only goes to City Council. That is why when that was submitted, Shari Stiles brought it to you as an issue that all of a sudden we have a sewer easement where there was a major landscape buffer promised to buffer adjacent properties and to dress up Nine Mile Creek. We’ve gone through several revisions to try and address that issue but still feel that it is insufficient; therefore, we can allow the applicant to make their case to you as to why it’s a reasonable compromise, and if you feel so, just approve it as-is, or remand it back to Planning and Zoning Commission to resolve the issue. That’s what I see as the options. Anderson: So there is really no compromise in the – between you guys and the developer on the landscaping, then? I would think there would be some room for compromise that maybe we could cut back on some of the landscaping and maybe he could cut back on some of the building or – have those options been discussed or not? Siddoway: Yes, options are discussed. They – do you want more details? They kept the buildings the same, added a planter at the end of each building that would hold one tree. Those trees are basically 55 on center; the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law require a minimum of trees of 35 feet on center, so we would need at least two – if you agree to the 55 feet on center is fine, there is one on the end of each building, then that could go through and be approved tonight. I presented this to Shari Stiles on the phone, she said no. You need a continuous buffer as was promised in the hearings at Planning and Zoning Commission . At least six feet wide outside of the easement and to finish the buildings accordingly, and the applicant does not want to do that. Anderson: Okay. Berg: In the last meeting, members of the Council, you approved the Development Agreement for this project. My only concern dealing with annexation if there are things in the Development Agreement which is of Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for annexation, if there are some issues that are going to be submitted back, we send the whole project back, and you sent the Development Agreement – we have not required it yet because I know this issue was here, so we’ve just held onto the Development Agreement as such. Mayor: Sounds like a legal question to me. Nichols: Mayor, members of the Council, Mr. Berg, has the City signed a Development Agreement? Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Mr. Nichols, the Mayor has not signed it yet, but the Council approved it at the last City Council meeting. Nichols: I’m – Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I’d like to look at the file when we get to that particular issue and see if I can tell by looking at the Development Agreement whether we’ve got room or not. I think we have to look at the agreement since it was approved by the Council. Corrie: Okay. We’ll move that one to 14A, then. Item O. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-002 Request for vacation of two 6-foot easements, north/south and east/west, by Hawkins Smith Management Co – northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove: Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, my final item is Letter O on the Consent Agenda. It is a vacation for Hawkins Smith. You probably received – there was an item sitting on the table when I got here today. A response from Marlene St. George. I also received a memo from here earlier today requesting that this item be tabled to April 4th because the legals had not been acquired yet to relinquish the rights of those easements by the power companies. I believe what this letter that we now – the latest letter has in it and staff’s position after discussions late this afternoon with the applicant are that you would go ahead and approve these Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the vacation – would ask Gary to respond to this as well, the reason is the applicant cannot get relinquishment letters until the utilities are physically moved. They cannot physically move the utilities until they get the building permits. There already are in staff comments in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law a requirement for them to submit those relinquishment letters to the Building Department prior to occupancy, so we feel like we’re covered, but it’s kind of a chicken-egg thing: we can’t wait for the relinquishment letters before we approve the vacation because they’re not going to give up their right to that easement until after the utilities are moved to a new location. Do you have any comments, Gary, on that? So we would basically state that this one would remain on the Consent Agenda, but just wanted to give that background as to the issues that have come up today. deWeerd: So that doesn’t need to be tabled? Siddoway: We would say that it does not need to be tabled. There’s no reason to table it to wait for the relinquishment letters because they’re not going to get them on the 4th either. We need to get the building permits and be able to begin construction and move the utilities to a new location, give that new easement, and then the other utilities companies will relinquish the other easements. Those relinquishment letters will be required prior to occupancy and given to the Building Department. Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I don’t believe there has been Findings prepared for your packets; I haven’t received any because of this issue of not receiving the legals. I don’t know if there’s any to approve. Corrie: All we’ve got is a Development Agreement, right? That’s what – oh. That’s the wrong item. I’m sorry. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this vacation of easements was a requirement of the Development Agreement and the Decision of Order with regard to this particular development. So, yes, you have the Development Agreement already, I believe. It’s just that this was a particular vacation proceeding for these specific easements. So we don’t have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law because we were waiting on the relinquishments which we usually require before we vacate them. If they’re not in Mr. Berg’s materials, then we haven’t prepared them. So there’s nothing to be acted upon in the Consent Agenda. Corrie: So we need to table that to 4/4 ? Nichols: And Mayor, members of the Council, based upon this discussion, we will prepare them and have them ready for 4/4 based upon staff comments. Item H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-005 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Papa John’s Pizza in an L-O zone for a take-out, delivery and eating establishment by Cole Associates Architects – 1580 West 4th Street, Suite 103: Corrie: Item H is just – the Findings of Facts on H was that we were getting rid of it. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, with regard to Item H, we have, I think, furnished to the Council a copy of the letter that we received that basically shows that they’ve withdrawn it. There are no Findings of Fact to approve denying that CUP. I think we can just simply strike that in the agenda and consider it withdrawn. deWeerd: would that be (inaudible) with N, too? Corrie: Findings of Facts for the 4M Leasing? Item 12. Public Hearing: VAR 00-003 Request for reduction in the requirements for landscaping and parking for the expansion of an existing warehouse facility in an I-L zone by 4M / Canvest: Siddoway: No because N hasn’t been withdrawn. They’re still vacating it. They’ve only withdrawn the variance. The reason for that, they’ve decided to comply with the Ordinance rather than to try to get a variance from it, and they actually already have an approved Certificate of Zoning Compliance based on current ordinances for landscaping and parking, so they withdrew their variance application. Bird: But N stays on the Consent Agenda, right? Corrie: I guess on the regular agenda, No. 2, the Ordinance for the request for the annexation and zoning of Walgreen’s, we already did that, right? Under – (inaudible) So that would be stricken as well when we get to the agenda, No. 2, since we’ve already done it. All right. Anything else? (Discussion amongst Council members) Berg: Mr. Mayor, just as a point of clarification, if I may. Did all of you receive the revised Page 1 for the Ordinance for the Leavell’s property? Item 6. I’ll just briefly describe to you – in the summary of the Ordinance it’s correct. In Section 1 under the Findings, No. 1, it says the property is described from R-15 to L-O is incorrect. At the end of the summary it says from R-8 to R-15 which is correct, and we made that correction with the staff at the attorney’s office. So that’s a type change which I do have the original that you sent me. The summary is the correct designation for the rezone. Item A. Approve minutes of March 7, 2000, Special Pre-Council meeting: Corrie: And then the Pre-Council, Item A, should be withdrawn until the 4th? Is that what this memo is about? Bird: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we go into the regular agenda Item 15 which was an Executive Session per State Code 67-2345(c) relating to the acquisition of real property and negotiations right now and then come back. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Do we need to go out of the Pre-Council hearing and then go into that or can we go right straight from here to there? So we can just go ahead and do that, then? All right. I’ve got a motion and second to go into Executive Session. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote. Roll-call: deWeerd, aye; McCandless, aye; Anderson, aye; bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Thank you for being patient with the Council. We decided to do an Executive Session during the Consent Agenda reading. Council, I’ll entertain a motion to come out of the Executive Session and also then we’ll close the Pre-Council hearing. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we come out of the Executive Session with nothing accomplished. deWeerd: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to come out of the Executive Session with no decisions being made. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: I’ll also take a motion to close the Pre-Council hearings. Anderson: So moved. Corrie: Okay, motion is made and seconded to close the Pre-Council hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK