Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMeridian City Council December 16, 1997 Page 26 Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to have the attorney draw up the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the deed restriction, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: FINAL PLAT -BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 4, 39 LOTS BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION - N. OF BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 3: Turnbull: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I have gone over the packet that we received today from the City. The general and site specific comments from Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles, I don't think there was anything we had to take issue with there I think we are in concurrence. I would just point out that this is the is last phase of the project so you won't see me again on this one. Corrie: Council questions? I will entertain a motion then. Morrow. Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the final plat for Bedford Place Subdivision No. 4 by Brighton Corporation. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded we approve the final plat of Bedford Place Subdivision No. 4 by Brighton Corporation, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Bentley: Mr. Mayor. I move we take a break. FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #15: ECONO LUBE SUBDIVISION, 4 LOTS BY ECONO LUBE N'TUNE INC. - EAST OF LOCUST GROVE, S. SIDE OF FAIRVIEW: Corrie: Council what is your wish on this one, is there anyone here from Econo Lube? McKeegan: Patrick McKeegan, I am the architect for Econo Lube, Basically I was just going to respond to a couple of the specific comments in the Clerk's report concerning the conditions of approval unless you wanted an overview of the project. I think we have talked about it a lot. We have received the report issued on December 10 and as indicated in Mr. Joe Canning's reply who is here tonight the engineer on the property to the City that we are in agreement with the conditions of approval accept as I am going Meridian City Council• • January 6, 1998 Page 15 Bentley: I would agree. Corrie: I will entertain a motion for table. Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second Come: Moved and second, that will be tabled to the January, do you want it the 20"'? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I think this is going to take a little time, at least get through a planning session. Morrow. I think Mr. Bentley is correct, I think it needs to be into February that it is dealt with because clearly the point is missed here. It needs to be a substantial part of a future planning session to make sure it is done right. Corrie: Then we need some time to make sure the City Attorney can write it up. So we have the second meeting of February then? Morrow: That would be my motion. Corrie: Okay, motion and second to the second meeting in February. to be tabled any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Come: Council you have the findings of fact in front of you, what is your pleasure? Morrow. I have no problems with the findings of fact. Come: Mr. Tolsma or Mr. Bentley? This is the one with the deed restriction attached to it. Bentley: I have a question for Gary Smith. On item #28 you brought up the fact of the tracking of this restriction, are you satisfied the deed restriction will accomplish that? Smith: Councilman Bentley, I am not sure how the deed restriction so I don't ~~now that I can answer your question. I assume that from a transfer of property ownership that the ~- Meridian City Council January 6, 1998 Page 16 deed restriction kicks in and the new buyer is made aware that at that point they have to remove the structure that is in violation of the setback, is that correct Wayne? Crookston: Yes it is. Morrow: It would be part of the title policy also. Smith: If the deed restriction as written says that then that would do the job Councilman as far as I know. . Crookston: The deed restriction does state that. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I just had a question, what happens if they remove that sunroom and then the house doesn't meet the square footage- requirement? I guess it seems kind of awkward to have a variance on a permanent structure granted but then as soon as the living trust is not enforced then they have to tear down that room and add on. Did you go look at that Walt? Morrow: Not closely, from the street. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a question on that if it is an existing house from the original property set up how do you force them to conform to square footage size to begin with? Stiles: That portion of the property hasn't been platted yet. When they do plat it and make it an actual legal lot then the location of the road will encroach into the setback there. Bentley: Right, but what does that have to do with the square footage of the house? Stiles: Well it is an existing house, if they are required to comply with the setback requirement why vuouldn't they also be required to comply with their square footage requirement? Morrow. I think that Shari part of the answer there is which is the most important from the Council's perspective. It is an existing house it pre-dates the ordinances with respect to square .footage. It is going to be given it's own lot upon platting of that particular area. The Councl has one of two choices either you allow the structure to stay there and not conform to the setback which then causes a problem with all of the other properties that are conforming to the setback or you leave that encroaching in the setback and go with the square footage thing. I think aesthetically I think it probably makes more sense to have it conform with the setback. Generally speaking what happens with these types of properties is that they are fenced out of the subdivision to some degree anyway and they self renew at some point in the future. So it is one of ti~ose situations where we as a City can't have it both ways, we have to go one way or the other way. My observation is the preference to have the setback. Meridian City Council January 6, 1998 Page 17 Stiles: So it is a temporary variance. Morrow. Yes but temporary could be a long time. Come: Any further discussion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve and adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as written. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made and second that we approve the findings of fact and contusions as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Absent, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Come: I will entertain a motion for the decision. Mon'ow: Mr. Mayor, it is hereby decided that the variance to the setback ordinance is hereby granted upon the condition that a deed restriction be entered into with Brighton Corporation and the applicant shall be required to have the 20 foot setback reinstated after the life estate of Helen B. Davis is no longer valid on the- property. Tolsma: Second Come: Motion made and second on the detsion as read, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: DISCUSSION OF HONOR PARK NO. 3 SUBDIVISION: Come: Is Mr. Hon or a representative or Stan Hutchinson. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, with Briggs Engineering, we brought this final plat before you in July, vue had a lengthy discussion on maintenance of the two private roads. Just to refresh your memory it is the Honor Park subdivision off of Franklin owned by Mr. Hon. We are proposing two private roads, they would have a 50 foot right of way width, they were separate lots and a 37 foot back to back street section, 5 foot sidewalks both sides. Mr. Hon preferred both of these to be private, one is approximately 300 feet in length and the other is about 350 if you go to the center of the culdesac. During the preliminary plat process and the final plat we discussed issues such as maintenance of those private roadways. Mr. Morrow went into a .long discussion that he wanted the