Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 12-21 PreMERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PRE-COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1999 The Pre-Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:35 p.m. on Tuesday, December 21, 1999, by Mayor Robert Corrie. MEMBERS PRESENT: BOB CORRIE, CHARLIE ROUNTREE, RON ANDERSON, KEITH BIRD MEMBERS ABSENT: GLENN BENTLEY OTHERS PRESENT: BILL GORDON, BILL GIGRAY, GARY SMITH, SHARI STILES, KEN BOWERS, CHERIE McCANDLESS, WILL BERG ITEM D. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 7, 1999: Corrie: I’ll open the Pre-Council meeting tonight, December 21, 1999, at 6:35 p.m. to discuss the agenda items on the regular City Council meeting. Roll-call – roll, Mr. Clerk. Thank you. Anything on – one of the things, I guess, we still need to find out is did everybody get the minutes on the 7th or are you – do you have them with you or have we possibly hold that – Bird: Pre-Council meeting? Corrie: Yeah. Bird: I’ve seen them. They were in our box last week. Corrie: Did you get yours? Bird: I got mine. I don’t have them with me. I read them last night and forgot to put them in my packet. ITEM D. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 7, 1999: ITEM F. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BY DAROL FORSYTHE/SEVEN GATES PROPERTIES – LOTS 8, 9, 10, BLOCK 1, LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION, EAST OF NOLA ROAD AND NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD: ITEM G. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR SEVEN GATES INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION BY SEVEN GATES PROPERTIES, Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 2 LLC, EAST OF NOLA ROAD AND NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD IN LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK: Corrie: Okay. I guess we don’t have D, yet, so that might have to be pulled off. F and G – we got some letters today, a letter – a lot of confusion on this thing. In talking with Mr. Gigray, might want to consider pulling these two off and remand them back to the Administrative staff for further review and then report back to the City Council. You (inaudible)? Conditional uses and preliminary plats, I don’t know where we are. Any questions, Bill? Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, as I believe, there has been a late filing by the applicant on the Seven Gate project, and as you remember, this was a subdivision request and a variance and a condition of the subdivision final plat approval was granting the variance. As I saw the documents which were shared with me by Shari Stiles, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, it appears as if they’re claiming an error in their own staff in the presentation of this matter, and it appears that when you look at it that they may even be taking the position that they don’t need a variance at all. Given those circumstances, it seems to me to be reasonable that the Council could consider moving to hold and continue Items F and G and then remand the matter for – and I mean remand the letter that you just received back to the Planning and Zoning Administrator to review maybe that with the applicant and maybe advise the Council as to whether or not the applicant should withdraw their application for variance or whether or not you should proceed with the Findings as they’ve been done, and I don’t think you’re in a position at this point, and I don’t think the Administrator’s had an opportunity to thoroughly review this matter to determine what procedure would be followed, and because all of these matters involve procedure as opposed to substance concerning the facts that are before you, I think that would be proper unless Shari objects. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I had a question too. I guess I don’t recall passing any of the Findings of Facts under the Consent Agenda before either. They’re listed on here under the Consent Agenda. Is that something new we’re doing? Bird: We did it last week. Corrie: We did it last week and – Bird: I agree with you, Ron. I don’t like it. Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 3 Anderson: I missed the meeting, so maybe you could inform me why we’re doing that? Corrie: Mainly, it’s – the Council directs the attorney to draw up those Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and then be reviewed by each Councilman. You don’t have to do it that way, but it’s just a lot quicker. What you’re asking the attorney to draw up and if you agree with it, it’s just a lot quicker meetings. But if you want to go through each one of them every time, (inaudible). It’s what you’re – your Findings are directed to the attorney to – what you tell him to do, and he draws them up. It’s just a matter of what we’re going through. Anderson: Just a question, then, for legal counsel. Is this a recommended practice, or are we going to get into any kind of trouble by doing this or – I realize that would speed the meetings up, but is that the best route or safest route to go? Gigray: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, members of the Council, I think it’s a matter or your choice. I think it’s something that you can do. I know in working with the Mayor, there was – because of the amount of volume at these City Council meetings we’re having and the length of the meetings, I was asked whether or not Findings could be placed on a Consent Agenda, and I think they can be, particularly under Consent Agendas, you have the right to pull any of them off that you wish and ask that they be separately considered if there’s any issue involving any of them. But if you prefer that they not, and the Council directs that they not be put on the Consent Agenda and be on the regular agenda, then you have that right, too. I think it’s a matter of your own choice and style. Anderson: I don’t really have any problem with the concept, but, quite often, it’s been my experience of walked in and we haven’t received the Findings of Facts until the day of sometimes of the Council meeting, and I don’t feel comfortable walking in at a quarter ‘til the meeting and having to peruse those that quickly to find out if they were indeed accurate or not. I guess in some cases, point to make. If they were guaranteed to be to us in our box by Friday night and we had the weekend to peruse them, I wouldn’t see any problem with placing them on the Consent Agenda, but if it’s something that comes in on Monday or Tuesday, I don’t think it’s adequate time sometimes to review them. Bird: I agree with Councilman Anderson on that. We usually can get through these pretty – I realize that it is nice to have a Consent Agenda where you take care of about 50 items. I don’t know. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law I think is something that unless we really got overloaded, it’s like tonight. We’ve got these which – like you say, we can pull them off, but we have to go back. If we don’t get them by Friday, and I don’t know about the rest of the guys, don’t all the time get to read them thoroughly and see if we’ve missed something. I know you’ve picked up points that we missed on these Findings of Facts and stuff, so I Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 4 would like to try this, Mr. Mayor, as not on the Consent Agenda for awhile and see if they bottle us up again. I don’t like staying until one, two, three o’clock in the morning neither, but – Rountree: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: My observation over four years as it relates to Findings and Facts, all too often, unless something’s pointed out to us, we don’t catch it. I like the idea that it is on the Consent Agenda because it kind of forces you to look at it. I agree if we get something on Friday night and we don’t – you don’t pick it up until Monday or it comes in Monday and we don’t pick it up until before the meeting that we have, as a Council, every opportunity to remove it from the Consent Agenda, but if this – the Findings are there in advance and you see them on a Consent Agenda, they should be reviewed and if you have any problems with what you’re reviewing, then you pull them from the Consent Agenda. From the public’s point of view, sitting out in the audience, every time we have a Findings and Fact, you know, it’s pretty routine, the motion’s are the same. Unless you have something to say about it, it’s – being one right after the other. But it takes time. It probably takes five minutes per each. Then if you’ve got them all on the Consent Agenda, and like this evening, yeah, there’s definitely a couple that need to come off, but with a motion for accepting the Consent Agenda, they can come off. The Consent Agenda can be voted on by roll-call vote so you don’t put yourself in the situation of having to differentiate between ayes and nays or roll- call; you can get it all taken care of if there’s something on there by way of a resolution as it relates to the Finding or something, you can take care of it. You two guys are the ones that are going to have to live with it, but that’s my two cents’ worth. Bird: Okay. Corrie: One of the things we could do is if it isn’t in by Friday, those Findings of Facts will go on the regular agenda and that way you have a case to look at them ahead of time. If they don’t get here before Friday, they go down to the regular agenda. Bird: And I understand. It’s like tonight, you know, on this Item F. I understand that probably didn’t come in to them until today. They got it to us – the deal we got here regarding that. That’s fair with me if it’s fair with Councilman Anderson. It’s very fair with me. Anderson: That’s fine. I just don’t like walking in the night of, and I’m not a speed-reader by any means, and I don’t like just having a few minutes to look at something. I know quite often that we’ve just discussed those. You, Shari, pointed out something or the Councilors pointed out something and we corrected Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 5 them that night, so if we have a chance to read them, and if they’re in the box by Friday night, I think that’d be okay, and if they’re not by Friday, then they don’t go on the Consent Agenda. Bird: That’s great. Anderson: Does that need a motion? Bird: that’s just a policy we can take care of. Corrie: Just make sure that you got -- The City Clerk will take that note that if we don’t have it by Friday, we’ll just stick it in the regular agenda as a Findings of Facts and if we don’t get it later, then they can pull it off. I think – Berg: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Berg. Berg: Thank you. Just as a point of some timing issues, we will wait as long as we can to prepare that agenda and try to get those Findings. We can’t receive the Findings at 5:00 and then make up the agenda, but we’ll work with the attorney’s office and try to accommodate those issues and put them on the Consent Agenda if we have them. Bird: Okay. So we’re going to pull F and G, Mayor? That’s the recommendation? Corrie: I think that’s the recommendation. There’s – ITEM H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R-T TO R-4 BY WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC – SOUTH ½ OF THE NW ¼ SECTION 17 T3N R1E: Bird: H is fine. Corrie: H needs to be held because we can’t do a conditional use permit if we don’t have a Development Agreement or annexation and zoning. Bird: We don’t have a Development Agreement. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I would advise you that I’ve had telephone conversations with Mr. Ed Miller who represents Woodbridge Community, LLC. At this time, we’re awaiting their signature of the Development Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 6 Agreements, and I believe there’s a property owner of, I think it’s Parcel A, which is Mr. Griffin who they are buying out or purchasing the property so therefore he won’t need to be on the Development Agreement. It’ll be the LLC that’ll be on the Development Agreement. Evidently he’s a very hard person to track down. He doesn’t think he’ll be able to get this accomplished until sometime after the first of the new year or so. They have requested and understand that this matter will be continued to be held until the Development Agreement is signed and the annexation ordinance is passed and published so that the property is subject to the ordinances of the City and can proceed with the Findings on the conditional use permit. In the meantime, you can read them and you’ll have them available for when it comes up. That was a request from Mr. Miller. Corrie: Any other things from Council that you’d like to discuss? ITEM F. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BY DAROL FORSYTHE/SEVEN GATES PROPERTIES – LOTS 8, 9, 10, BLOCK 1, LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION, EAST OF NOLA ROAD AND NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD: ITEM G. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR SEVEN GATES INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION BY SEVEN GATES PROPERTIES, LLC, EAST OF NOLA ROAD AND NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD IN LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK: Bird: F, G and H is all pulled. F and G is sent back to Shari at the Planning and H is held until we – development – Gigray: (inaudible) and that’s what you’ve done before. Rountree: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If we could have Shari go over these Findings maybe one by one with us. If there’s any input that she has, that would be helpful, and, also, the Chief on the beer and wine renewals. Corrie: Shari, would you like to do F and G? Kind of where it is with – we’ll probably pull that and give it back to you and to your staff. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I have talked with the applicant’s representative on this. I did understand what they felt the problem was; however, since they did submit that information and it was only six days prior to the meeting, we felt it was new information that they had submitted and relied on that submittal in Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 7 thinking that was an acceptable compromise. What they originally submitted, we don’t feel is acceptable. What they’re asking for is to go back to their original application to only provide 34 trees out of the 77 that are required and then to call it good. I don’t see how that’s ever going to work. So I’d still recommend that they stick with their plan, wouldn’t have a big problem if they went down to ten feet instead of the 20 they’ve shown. That’s all our staff had recommended originally in their report was that be kept at 10 feet, but it also include the west border there so they could maximize the number of trees that they had. They also stated in their letter that if they had submitted this plan, they – we would have accepted it and it wouldn’t have needed a variance, and that’s not true either because that would – they would’ve still been short the required number of trees. I had reviewed the Findings and took great care to make sure that they read the way the approvals were and that because of the number of drawings that we had, but short of them starting over and resubmitting and trying to do the same thing, if they try to get another variance, I imagine they’re going to submit exactly what they’ve already submitted. I don’t know where we – we’ll have to re-open the public hearing. I think they should be required to pay fees and publication and notice to everybody and go through the same process. They had the opportunity to get up during the meeting and rebut what we were discussing, and they didn’t. I realize that it was an error on their part, or they believe it to be an error, but I think it was a good compromise what we ended up with and the only thing I would want to consider is to reduce that landscape that they show on their plan as 20 feet and make it 10. Still require the 66 trees. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. I’m confused. If they were requesting a variance and we denied it, why do they have to go back? It’s just denied, right? And so they can build it without the variance and they can build it with meeting code. Why is it going back to anybody? Stiles: They can’t meet it – they have no intention of meeting code. They want to go – Anderson: Then they can’t build it, right? Stiles: They have no – they can, I mean, it’s not an impossibility for them to provide trees. They don’t want to. Anderson: Right. We’ve denied the variance, though. Stiles: The variance is – the Findings grant the variance in part. They don’t give them what they wanted, but they do release them from complying 100 percent with the ordinance which would require the 77 trees. They allowed them to go from 77 which would have been required since the entire site is only buildings and asphalt to go from 77 to 66. Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 8 Anderson: So if they decide to comply with what P & Z approved, they could build it, right? Stiles: Well, it didn’t go to P & Z. It’s only gone to Council. I guess if they’re willing to comply with the Findings as they’ve been written which is based on the motion that was made, they could do that, but they don’t want to. They want to go back and only provide 34 trees. Anderson: That’s their choice. Stiles: Right. I’m saying that it should just go forward, you should act on the Findings that – the decision that was made. I think it was a reasonable compromise, and it would still say that they could go down to the ten feet. It’s really not necessary to have a full 20 feet along the railroad corridor. It would be great to have trees along the railroad corridor, especially if we have that as a mixed-use, multiple-use pathway or rail – Anderson: So your recommendation is that we ought to go ahead and act on these. Stiles: That would be my recommendation or have them start over. Corrie: Would that include G, Shari? Stiles: Well, the plat’s really tied to the conditions of the variance. In order to get the plat signed by Gary, they’re going to have to bond – issue a letter of credit or cash with a quote for those improvements prior to ever getting the plat signed. So it is tied. Corrie: It’s just a matter of what you want to do. Bird: I think it probably make it – it’s either remand it back or they live by the deal like Bill was saying (inaudible) 66 trees in and they don’t get their conditional use or anything (inaudible) 34 trees (inaudible) conditional use (inaudible) put in another building. They don’t – (inaudible) opposed to. Anderson: So recommendation is we don’t act on the Findings? Gigray: No. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, members of the Council, I was just suggesting as a procedural way to handle this letter would be to remand the letter or just direct, and I think the Planning Administrator, Shari, has indicated her preferences on this. I just don’t know what the applicant’s reaction to that is. I was thinking if you tabled the Findings, had them report back at the next Council meeting, yes, they’ll go with the Findings as they are, or they’re withdrawing or whatever, at least you know what the applicant’s position – I don’t Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 9 know. Maybe they’ll be here tonight. I think you can address the procedure of it. Or you could act on the Findings that were recommended by the Administrator. You can change Findings. You just can’t get more information without opening a public hearing, and that’s the problem with their submittal is, I think, they’re proposing, and, Shari, correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I think they’re proposing to submit a little different plan, and it’s more evidence and you’ve got to open the hearing back up and advertise to do that. Bird: (inaudible) And that wasn’t what was voted upon. Gigray: It’s a different plat. Bird: Different plat, isn’t it? It’s the same as the one we got with our Findings that we had last week or last time. Gigray: The site plan. Stiles: I believe this – you mean what they just submitted today? Bird: Yeah. Stiles: What they submitted today was – well, I don’t even know what this is. Bird: December 1st is when we submitted those. I don’t recall this future building being on. Stiles: They’ve submitted both plans today. The one that you acted on which was approved which shows all the landscaping on this southern boundary, that was what was acted on by the Council and what they originally submitted. What they’re saying is they want you to reconsider what they originally submitted. Bird: That’s right. That’s what I’m saying. That’s (inaudible) Corrie: That’s why I suggested they file a new one or recommend it back to you. Does that answer your question? Anderson: Yeah. That helps. Corrie: Charlie. Rountree: I think we could both on this one. We could move forward with the Findings because that’s what we’d like to see them do. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to do the project and remand their letter back to Shari’s staff and discuss with them that this is what the Findings say. If you don’t like it, appeal it or file a new application for a different project. Either way, they’re going to have to have some action. I think we need to tell them, this is our response to your Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 10 letter. We’re either going to table it or we’re going to act on it, and I think in fairness to them, we probably ought to act on it because that’s what we wanted them to do in the first place. At least they’ll know where to go. Bird: So leave it on the Consent? Rountree: At least it gives them an idea of where we’re coming from. Anderson: It’s clean and if they don’t want to do it – ITEM E. APPROVAL OF 2000 RENEWAL APPLICATIONS FOR BEER, WINE AND / OR LIQUOR LICENSES: APPROVAL OF BEER AND LIQUOR LICENSES FOR JANIS OGAWA FOR THE WHITEWATER SALOON: APPROVAL OF BEER AND WINE LICENSES FOR TODD GODFREY FOR THE IDAHO PIZZA COMPANY: Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: On these renewal license stuff, I’m sure that you’ve had no problem with them. Gordon: No problems. Corrie: Okay. Berg: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Berg. Berg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to say it was very grateful in our department for us to work with Chief Gordon on some of these renewals because some of them were very late getting in, and he did make a point of checking them and getting back to us with other information that was needed or if everything was okay. I want to thank him for his work on that. Corrie: Thanks, Chief. ITEM H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED WOODBRIDGE SUBDIVISION ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R-T TO R-4 BY WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC – SOUTH ½ OF THE NW ¼ SECTION 17 T3N R1E: Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 11 ITEM I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR APPROXIMATELY 20,000 SQUARE-FOOT CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY, CREDIT UNION, DRIVE-UP TELLER UNITS AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS BY CAPITAL EDUCATORS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION - LOTS 14, 25, 18 AND 19 IN BLOCK 2 OF HONOR PARK SUBDIVISION NO.3: ITEM J. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN OLD TOWN TO A FINGERNAIL SALON, ELEGANT NAILS, BY CHRISTY P. FIELDSTAD – 1026 N. MERIDIAN: Rountree: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I just wanted to know if Shari had any comments on H, I or J. Stiles: I didn’t. I have had an opportunity to review all of the Findings, and if I had any problems with them, we worked them out and got them changed before they were submitted. Rountree: Appealing the sign deal. Corrie: Mr. Clerk, do you have that Development Agreement for H yet? Berg: Mr. Mayor, no we do not have that Development Agreement. Corrie: Then we can pull it off. Bird: On which one? Corrie: H. Bird: Yeah. We got to pull that. That’s the only one we got to pull so far, I guess. (inaudible discussion amongst Council members) Corrie: Any other questions that Council has on – the staff? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting December 21, 1999 Page 12 Corrie: If there’s none, I’ll entertain a motion to close the Pre-Council meeting. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion’s been made and seconded to close the Pre-Council meeting. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:10 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK