Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 15, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 3 of 60 Commission and if we need to request clarification from staff -- but that's the direction it goes, from the individual speaking., to the Commission, and, then, between us and staff. And it's very important that you remain courteous to the individual at the microphone and we would expect that from them the other way as well. The -- the procedure is we will open up a Public Hearing and the first thing we do is we ask the staff to present the project and what they do is they will present it in a fashion that relates to the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. That's their presentation. Once they have completed their presentation, then, the applicant will have 15 minutes to present the project from their perspective and that 15 minutes is all inclusive, so if there are multiple presenters from the applicant's perspective, all of them need to encompass their testimony within that 15 minute period. Once those two portions of the opened project is complete, then, it will be open to the public to speak from their perspective and each individual will be given three minutes to speak. If there is one individual that is speaking for a homeowners association that is going to speak for a larger group, that person will be given ten minutes and that does not specifically preclude any other individuals from that subdivision from speaking, but, generally speaking,, it should encompass the thought process for that group as a whole. But if there is something left out and the person feels it's appropriate, then, they are certainly welcome to speak as well. But each individual -- additional individuals have three minutes to speak, then, the applicant will have the final word. They will speak -- they will have the chance to respond to any comments from the public. At that time we will close the Public Hearing and if, in fact, we have enough information to move forward, we will make our recommendations to City Council. And that's the procedure. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 07-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.88 acres from RUT to an R-2 zone for the property located at 1650 Dunwoody for Dunwoody Property by Marshall Williams - 1650 Dunwoody: Rohm: And so with that being said, we shall now open the Public Hearing for AZ 07- 015 related to the Dunwoody property and begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for annexation and zoning of 1.88 acres of land from RUT Ada County, to R-2, low density residential. Here is the property right there. The property is located at 1650 Dunwoody Court on the northeast corner of Dunwoody Court and North Locust Grove Road, approximately a third of a mile south of Chinden. This property is platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Dunwoody Subdivision. This is an aerial view of the property. Rural residential properties zoned RUT in Ada County surround the property. This property is contiguous to property that has been annexed into the city at the southwest corner across Locust Grove, Madeline Estates, zoned R-4. Anew home has recently been constructed on this property. The applicant's request for annexation is based upon the fact that the property has already been hooked up to city services. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1'S, 2007 Page 4 of 60 applicant is requesting annexation as a stipulation of being hooked up to city water and sewer. The requested R-2 zoning district complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of low density residential for this property. The city's lowest density residential designation is R-2. Letters of testimony on this application have been received from John and Patricia Gridley, Michael and Kim Callahan, David and LuAnn Bean, Kent Borgman, Terry Copple, Maurene Miller and Richard Price. And Don and Sally Abkin, objecting to the annexation of this property into the city with an R-2 zoning designation. The primary concern voiced by these folks is that if an R-2 zoning designation is approved, it would allow the property to be further subdivided in the future. I'd just like to clarify that while the R-2 zoning designation would allow for a maximum density of two homes per acre, the property would first have to go through the platting process, which requires that adjacent property owners within 300 feet be notified of the Public Hearing. If this happens in the future, the public would have an opportunity to comment on the request at that time. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation and zoning request to R-2 as stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thanks very much, Any questions of staff? O'Brien: Not at this time. Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come forward., please? Williams.: Marshall Williams, 1650 Dunwoody. I purchased the home or the ground.. It was Ada County. They tell me you got to go to the city to get services. Requirements. I go to the city. They say to get a water meter and sewer hookup I need to annex. It's a pretty simple application.. There is no question about -- it's just an application for annexation, not for a lot split. Simplifies it. I am -- we are asking that it be annexed, so we can have the city services, which is a requirement by being so close to Locust Grove that already has city services and we have built the home, already done the install of the water and sewer, so we are -- Rohm: You're ready to go. Williams: Ready to go. Ready to go. Rohm: Okay. Williams: That's about the size of it. Rohm: Did that property have septic service and well on it prior to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 5 of 60 Williams: There were no -- no services that way. And that's why I went to the -- oh, district health and they told me that I'd have to go to the city. Rohm: Okay. Williams: So, there are no -- no prior services on the lot. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? I'm just curious. You had the house built? Williams: Yes. Moe: And what jurisdiction did it go through for building permitting process? Williams: Ada County. Moe: Did go through the county? Williams: Uh-huh. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? O'Brien: I don't have. It's pretty cut clear. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Before we take testimony and I certainly want everyone to know that we want to hear anything that is brought before us, but the thing that I also want everyone to know is the Planning and Zoning Commission is not a vehicle for enforcement of CCRs and if there are issues between the property owner and what you folks perceive to be the covenants within your subdivision, that's a private matter that is not even part of our hearings here tonight, so any testimony that is received -- anything related to the CCRs of the subdivision, really doesn't carry any weight itself as far as the application for being accepted into the city -- annexed into the city. So, with that being said., I will call the first person. Patricia Gridler. From the audience -- I assume it's Patricia -- she indicated that the president of their association would like to speak first and that's certainly acceptable. So, would the president like to come forward and state their name and address for the record and --and you have got ten minutes, sir. Moe: Can we poll the audience so we know -- Meridian Planning & zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 6 of 60 Rohm: Oh, yeah. Who are you speaking for -- could I get a show of hands.for -- okay. Thank you. Borgman: Yeah. My name is Ken Borgman, I am the president of the homeowners association for Dunwoody Subdivision. I guess it's pretty simple what our concerns are. Our concerns, obviously, are of the -- with the subdivision portion. It's not really the annexation portion. We are -- our concern is about the overall impact of what this will have. We mentioned CC&Rs. I won't get into that. There are some CC&R issues that we do have. But the main thing is that when MarKar first purchased the property and everything else and a sign went up there, one of our homeowners called on the sign to find out what was happening there and he was told that there was going to be three lots on that subdivision. Well, we -- I think I have already furnished a couple of pieces of paper for you, copies of two different letters that we had sent to the -- to the person who sold MarKar that lot, as well as to the Marshalls themselves -- the Williams themselves. So, addressing that concern. Obviously, when this came up and we were -- got the notice of subdivision and allowing -- which, essentially, the subdivision would allow up to -- or the -- up to three homes to go onto that lot, it kind of matched up with what our homeowner was originally told when he first called. Of course., right after he called the for sale sign came down and they presented a home to us to build on that lot. Well, that lot is a one point acre lot and the home that was built was pushed right up as close to the Dunwoody Road as possible, leaving a -- quite a large area behind it, followed up by the fact that when they submitted the architectural plans, they, basically, architecturally landscaped it to what amounted to almost a patio home in the back of it. And even the plans even had aline -- almost like a lot line drawn behind them. So, our biggest concern, obviously, is that, you know, our subdivision is made up of homes sitting on -- between one and a half to two and a half acre lots with single homes and that's what our CC&Rs, obviously, call for as well. We want to make sure that that -- that lot stays a single home lot and one of the things that we had talked -- and I submitted today was the request for a development agreement by the city that -- as a part of this, if they -- to go on with the annexation and the rezoning process, that there be a development agreement that requires the applicant not to subdivide this lot and, quite honestly, if we can come to that type of an agreement, you know, the homeowners and us, we really haven't had much of an issue. That's our -- obviously, our biggest concern. Other CC&R issues we have we can deal with at the appropriate time, so -- Rohm: Thank you, sir. O'Brien: I have just one question. In your covenants do you allow animals on your property? Borgman: Yes. O'Brien: Do you? Horses, cows, whatever? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission November 45, 2007 Page 7 of 60 Borgman: Yes. O'Brien: Okay. Borgman: Yeah. And we do have a number of homes that have horses and stuff with -- on their property. O'Brien: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. As I go through this list and call each one of you, if the homeowner president has already spoken in terms of what you wanted said, you can say from the audience that I have been spoken for and we can move to the next person on the agenda. So, Patricia Gridler. Gridler: Good evening. My name is Patricia Gridler. My husband and I live next door to the property in question. When we purchased our home a little over a year ago, it was a vacant lot and we were told that a home was going to be built there. We were very happy about the situation and -- but as time progressed and we were informed of different situations that had occurred., long before we purchased our property with the possibility that Mr. Markar at one time did want to put more than one home there, we weren't rather -- very pleased when we had over an acre and a half of property, so did everyone else, and set their homes that way and it afforded a lot of privacy. And as you can see, a lot of trees, landscaping, and so forth. It's a rather unique subdivision. Anyway, that's background and I'll go on. But the main issue with us is -- being next door to this situation is that if the R-2, which the city says in order to annex it has to be R-2, technically -- we don't have a problem with the technicalities of that, but the problem is that once that lot becomes approved by the city as annexed to the city with an R-2 designation, we feel that that's an incremental step into further subdividing that property at a later date. And as Mr. Borgman stated -- and he feels that he came up with a plan for our subdivision, we agree -- and we were just told about that ourselves this evening, but we feel that to accommodate a complete situation where we wouldn't feel that the city at a later date may not honor our covenants, which we have all signed, including Mr. Markar when he purchased the property, that they would be single family properties and with one -- only one home on each piece of property. And so we would just urge you to consider the situation, that if an R-2 designation is approved, that there is some legal and binding situation between Mr. Markar and the city, as Mr. Borgman suggested., so that at a later date that designation isn't used to subdivide further of our subdivision. And that's about it. In closing, I would ask that all of you think of your situation when you purchased property and devote the majority of your money into your home, that the -- the thing you purchased your home for isn't changed by somebody else's monetary gain. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 8 of 60 Rohm: Thank you. O'Brien: Just -- excuse me. Rohm: Ma'am, we have a question for you. Gridler: I'm sorry. O'Brien: So, where you're living now, is that --are you part of the county? Are you -- Gridler: We are county and we are -- well, in the picture we are to the right. O'Brien: Do you have a map up there? Nary: Can you pull the mike down, ma'am? Can you pull the mike down a little bit? Gridler: Oh, I'm sorry. Nary: That's okay:. Gridler: So -- Nary: There is a pointer that should be attached to that. It's on a little chain. Gridler: Oh. This is -- all right. This is the MarKar lot and this is ours. The back part of our lot is agricultural. The front part is all landscaping. You can see the berm. The way the property line is, the previous owners had both lots and they, apparently, as history -- we didn't know at the time when we purchased, but I guess quite -- not too long before we purchased this -- the home on this acreage, the people that sold to us also sold Markar. He -- they owned all of those -- both of those properties. And this is an incidental matter, but this berm here is surrounding our property -- actually, surrounding our home and part of that berm, when the previous owners split the lot, part of it is on Mr. Williams' property right there. So, part of that berm is his and -- but the rest is ours and that's where we are located.. And his home, as you saw in the picture earlier, is right here. All the rest of the property is vacant back here and, actually, foot by foot, don't know, if you probably divided it up, you could probably -- it's probably pretty evenly -- two other lots of acre each behind his home. O'Brien: So, I assume that these are like horse barns or something, those other outbuildings here? Gridler: These people have a shop behind their home. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 9 of 60 O'Brien: So, those -- I assume that there are certain sizes that you can -- you're limited to on those types of -- Gridler: We are limited to two -- two animals of each variety, whether it's horses and -- with the covenants they specifically say what kind of animals you can have and how many. But it's mostly farm-type animals. O'Brien: And this might be a question for staff, I'm not sure which, but are there allowed in your covenants a possibility of putting what they call a little cottage for grandma on the property? Gridler: No. No. O'Brien: All right. That's all I have. Thank you. Gridler: The -- uh-huh. You're welcome. And thank you very much for your time. Rohm: John Gridler, did you want to testify? From the audience he said that he's been spoken for. Michelle Borgman. She's been spoken for. Toby -- Toby -- he's been -- from the audience he says he's been spoken for. Alisha Harns. She's been spoken for. And Bill Wiser. Wiser: Yes, I'd like to speak, please. Rohm: Absolutely. Wiser: My name is Bill Wiser, 1842 East Dunwoody, which is kind of in the middle of the gray wall there to the right. I attended the meeting -- the neighborhood meeting for this upcoming decision process and we were informed of needing connectivity to water and sewer required annexation: I did not hear anything about R-2 zoning at that meeting. So, I guess I'd like to say if -- if a meeting is going to be held, I'd like if all the facts were presented, not just some of them. Be that as it may, where we are at is, you know, I'm just -- I support the statement of my president. We'd like to have some assurance that we are not going to have continued legal battles and expenses set up because of, you know, poor decisions up front. And if we allow R-2, we just set the ball rolling for us to attend more meetings and spend more money to uphold the covenants. Maybe a suggestion is we understood from that meeting, neighborhood meeting, that the lot just to the north was allowed to hook to the sewer without annexing, but only promising to annex if adjacent properties -- he wouldn't object to annexation. If you could do the same thing for this lot, that would solve all the problems, because he would not be required to do R-2 and he could be hooked up and he would sign a statement that said in the future he wouldn't object to being put into the city and., then, we don't have a problem. So, I just want to suggest possibilities here at this meeting that might Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 10 of 60 enable communication to prevent further legal action in an effort for a silly thing that should have never happened in the first place. If the planning were done appropriately, there wouldn't be a house there without services, it would have been resolved before he built a house. So, I'd just like to say, let's -- let's get the planning in order here and do the right thing, so that we, you know, minimize the expense for everybody to do what's written and, you know, will be enforced. So, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. That is the end of the list of individuals that have signed up, but if there is anyone else that would like to testify on this application now is that time to come forward.. At this time would the applicant like to come back up and respond to testimony received? Williams: Marshall Williams, 1650 Dunwoody. Also referred to as Mr. Markar. I have Marl<ar Design and Construction. The -- oh, several things have come up there that were interesting to us. Early discussion of subdividing. That had happened. I had talked to Planning and Zoning about that and decided against it. So, our application is to have a single residence.. The house where it sits, CC&Rs require a 50 foot setback. I don't know how much concrete I need to pay for for a driveway, but I thought that would be great, to have the house set where it's at. Minimal backyard. I'm a builder. The home's for sale. You put animals in there, you don't want to do landscaping. So, their question about a minimal backyard is, hey, if I lived there, why would I want to cut the grass? The property to the north, which is this gentleman right here -- and, then, also I understand that that property right there, which is part of the Dunwoody Subdivision -- and you have to ask staff about this, but I believe those two properties have already been -- have the utilities run to the properties and are subject to signing on for annexation to the City of Meridian. And that, therefore, puts everybody that is around them already in the process of having property line annexation. So, I'm kind of after the fact that those properties are already in the motion to do that. So, doing our property really doesn't do anything to them, because it's already been done. So, the property line itself as being annexation, they already have it on those two properties. The -- what else here? And, then, the R-2 zoning I believe was -- it was remarked that it would change zoning, because of annexation into the city at that town -- or that community meeting we had. One of the requirements for that meeting was 300 feet, everybody be involved. We felt that everybody on Dunwoody Drive should be notified and so we sent out letters to everyone letting them know what was going on, not just the people at 300 feet around us. And I felt that was the proper thing to do, let them all know in the subdivision that that's what has happened. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of the applicant before he sits down? Moe: Mr. Chairman. You stated something that you are -- you're living in the house now? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 11 of 60 Williams: No. Moe: No. But it is up for sale? Williams: Yes. Moe: And although you're saying that it's going to be a single house -- Williams: Uh-huh. That's what it is right now. Moe: I#, in fact, the -- are you selling in that vein as well, as far as whatever -- Williams: Yes. It's advertised as a single family home on an acreage. Moe: Thank you. Williams: I, actually, started that home as my own personal house, but I really didn't get to know the neighbors that well, so I decided not to live there. Rohm: Thank you. All right. That concludes the public testimony on this. Any discussion with staff before we close the Public Hearing? O'Brien: The only question I would have is why the inconsistency, if they have that kind of an answer for us here, is why would one be allowed to hook up to sewer -- or services not be annexed and this individual has to be? I'm not sure -- Rohm: And I think maybe to direct that question to staff, maybe we can get an answer. Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, the property has to be contiguous to a property that's already been annexed into the city in order to request annexation. Rohm: Are there other lots within the subdivision that do receive city services that at the time that they received them the properties were not contiguous to city -- property within the city? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Scott with Public Works is telling me that, no, no other properties within Dunwoody Subdivision have received services. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? O'Brien.: No more. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 12 of 60 Rohm: All right. As we normally do this, I will poll the Commission and get their final thoughts before we move forward. So, with that being said., Commissioner Moe, do you have some final thoughts? Moe: Well, as far as the -- I have no problem whatsoever with this property being annexed into the city and we have already pretty much stated in regard to the CC&Rs that, you know, we have nothing to do with those. I guess I would -- I am kind of curious with staff in regards to -- this will come back if, in fact, somebody wanted to subdivide that, it would come back anyway, so at that point we would be able to act on it at that point. So, I will be voting to approve the annexation. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm a little concerned that we have not -- seemingly nothing that we can do to assure these homeowners that this isn't going to have three -- three houses on it in an iterative process. I mean is this -- this house, though, is subject -- it's in the subdivision.; right? Dunwoody Subdivision? So, it's subject to the CC&Rs when there, so -- are all these properties around -- and this will be annexed as R-2, as they -- mean the two to the north will be annexed soon, I assume, once this one is? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, they could annex once they are contiguous, yes. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I thought the north two already had service -- city services. Stickland: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, to my knowledge they do not at this time, but as Anna spoke they weren't contiguous at that time. We also have another application that's coming through later tonight for Three Corners and if that gets annexed in, the Dunwoody's property, or the applicant's property, it really doesn't make that much difference, you will have it to the north also. The whole subdivision of Dunwoody, if the application to the north goes through, will have utility services within 300 feet. Newton-Huckabay: And I -- regarding the homeowner's request for a development agreement with the city, what is the city's response to that? Nary: It's up to you. Newton-Huckabay: To us? Nary: It's the recommendation to the Commission. However, you want to -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission., I mean if you want to have a development Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission November t5, 2007 Page 13 of 60 agreement with that condition, that's certainly your -- within your purview to recommend that to the City Council. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Have we -- I don't recall ever doing a development agreement to that nature in the past. It almost skirts our enforcement of CC&Rs, essentially. Nary: I can't recall a development agreement for -- with that type of restriction. Maybe Mrs. Canning can, but I -- I don't think we have ever had one. I mean understand -- mean this particular lot is pretty small. It's going to be awfully difficult to subdivide it anyway. There are restrictions on that. And I think that's maybe what Commissioner Moe was referring to is there are restrictions to that type of development anyway. Mr. -- Chairman Rohm's correct, I mean certainly the CC&Rs are a private action issue, so that's not really the city's purview, so -- but you can certainly recommend it if this Commission wants to, to require a development agreement and the City Council will have to make that decision on whether or not they think that's appropriate. It is unusual. Moe: Mr. Chairman, just a little follow-up with that. Basically, Iwas -- I felt the same way, but the point is is that there are CC&Rs for the subdivision anyway, so whoever is going to come in and purchase this property is going to note that it's a single house already, so they are purchasing anyway -- you know, I don't know that we need to put a definite agreement onto this. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Well, I concur with the other fellow Commissioners. I think we are not the policeman of the CC&Rs in this case and I think in the long term they will be that police agency to make sure that this doesn't happen or whoever buys the home will enter into an agreement with the covenants, et cetera. So, I don't think it will be within our grasp to be able to enforce anything. I think that the annexation is the next step in this process and I agree with it having to be annexed.. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I don't disagree with having the property annexed. I want to make that clear. What -- I just don't want to -- I don't want to enable the situation from -- you know; from getting more than one house on the property by our recommendation. Rohm; Okay. Newton-Huckabay: But I don't know that I'm ready to go so far as to set a precedence of a development agreement like one we haven't done in the past. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page T4 of 60 Rohm: Thank you. Being the chairman, I'm the last person who gets to speak and from my perspective I think that what we have here is we have an application to be annexed into the city and the R-2 zone is the most restrictive zone that they could have placed on this property and it. certainly falls within that -- those guidelines and I think that at such time, if, in fact, the current owners or any other choose to make changes and request additional splits within that lot, then, there are vehicles to address that at that time and we are certainly not promoting that in any way, but that's why we have those kind of applications and they will take their due course. So, from my perspective, our job is to address the application that's before us tonight and move forward with that and if, in fact, future development changes it, then, at that time we will address those issues and each and every one of you will have an opportunity to speak at that time and you will be heard. And that's the conclusion of my comments. So, with that being said, could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? O'Brien: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-015. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-015, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15, 2007. End of motion. O'Brien: Second.. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-015, which is the request for annexation only of 1.88 acres from RUT to R-2 zone for the property located at 1650 Dunwoody for the Marshall Williams family. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.