Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff CommentsHUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR A GOOd PIaCE 10 Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT T~°"'` W~ CITY OF MERIDIAN 6.4405 (208) p~ CrI'Y COUNCIL MEMBERS C WORKS Keith Bvd 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 898-5500 • Fax 887-1297 William L.M. Nary MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Shaua Wardle (208) 888-0433 ~ FAX (208) 887-0813 PLANNING AND ZONING City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-0218 DEPARTMENT Charles M. Rou1rtree (208) 8845533 ~ FAX 888L854 STAFF REPORT: Hearing Date: May 20, 2004 Transmittal e~ ~. E D To: Mayor and City Council ~ ~~to MAY 1 4 2004 From: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Principal City Planner - +~ity Of Meridian City Clerk Office Re: Packard Acres No. 3 Subdivision -Setback Variance Request for a Variance from Meridian City Code (MCC) 11-9-1 (Building Setbacks), to Allow a Reduction to Front Setback to 13.55 Feet for Lot 21, Block 5 in the Proposed Packard Acres No. 3 Subdivision, by Packard Estates Development, LLC (File No. VAR-04-002). The Plarming and Zoning stg~''has reviewed the applicant's submittal, and we offer the following comments and recommendations: APPLICATIQN BACKGROIIND/SIIMMARY The applicant, Packard Estates Development, LLC, has requested a variance from section 11-9-1 of Meridian City Code (MCC), which requires single family detached homes in the R-4 zone to provide minimum front yard setbacks of 20 feet from the properly line, or 15 feet for living areas. There is an existing house located on one of the future lots in Packard Acres No. 3 (L,ot 21, Block 5) which the applicant is seeking to preserve and integrate into the development. In order to extend E. Meadowgrass in Packard Acres No. 1 in its current alignment (keeping the street straight), the variance is needed. The other options are to either jog E. Meadowgrass slightly to the south in order to provide the existing house the required 20 feet or relocate the house. The applicant stated in their application that the hardship which prohibits compliance with the ordinance is that if E. Meadowgrass were forced to jog south it would make the lots on the south side too shallow to accommodate a 1,400 sq. ft. house. The applicant also states that the developer did not own the subject 5 acres (Packard Acres No. 3) at the time of platting E. Meadowgrass in Packard Acres No. 1. Granting the variance would allow the developer to keep the existing house in place and construct E. Meadowgrass as shown on the preliminary plat. The house would encroach 6.35 feet into the required front yard setback for the R-4 (per MCC 11-9- 2.D.3.b.). Staffis recommending approval ofthe variance application. yA@.p,.m~ PBa4eNAmae NO.3 Sbb.VAk Mayor and Council Transmittal Date: May 14, 2004 Page 2 LQCATION The property is located on the west side of Wingate Lane (private), approximately 2,000 feet south of Ustick Road. It is located in Township 3 N., Range 1 E., Section 5. North: Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2, zoned R-4 West: Chateau Meadows East Subdivision, zoned R-8. East: Packard Acres Subdivision No. 1, zoned R-4. South: An unplatted, 5-acre parcel with a single family residence and several .outbuildings, zoned RUT. F RECORD The property owner of record is Packard Estates Development, LLC, Wirt Edmonds, representing the owner, has provided notarized consent to Tealey's Land Surveying for submission of the applications. REQUIRED FINDINGS According to Ordinance 11-18-1, variances, the Couacil may authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of either the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance. Specifically, the Ordinance lists the following Findings (MCCl 1-18-3), all of which must be determined before granting a variance: A. That there are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of this Title would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable; Staff fords that the existing house and its location and orientation to E. Meadowgrass presents a special circumstance that affects consideration of the accompanying preliminary plat. To relocate the house simply to avoid a 6.35-foot encroachment into the front setback does not seem a reasonable or practical solution. It is certainly more reasonable to shift the alignment of E. Meadowgrass Street slightly to the south (vs. relocating the house), but this could still be seen as unnecessary and not practical by some. B. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Title would result iu extraordinary hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer because of unusual topography, the nature or condition of adjacent development, other physical conditions or other cooditiooa that make strict compliance with this Title unreasonable under the circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements of this Title will result in inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of this Title; vnn~oaara Paot~dACres No.3 Svb.VAR Mayor and Council Transmittal Date: May 14, 2004 Page 3 Staff finds that strict compliance. with MCC 11-9-1 would not result in an exlxaordinarv_ hardship to Packard Estates Developmem because there appears to be adequate land area in Lots 6 and 7, Block 1 (south side of E. Meadowgrasa) to allow for the re-alignment of the street. Certainly the developer did not create the existing condition. The hardship would be having to pay for a re-design and re-engineering of the civil drawings and potentially some additional construction costs. The City Council should consider whether such modifications are "extraordinary" or not. There are physical conditions which make strict compliance with the ordinance somewhat unreasonable (e.g. the existing house). C. That the granting of the specified variance will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurioas to other property in the area in which the property is situated; Staff does not anticipate that granting the variance will be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other properties in the area. The six (6) to ten (10) foot curve in the roadway that would be required in order to comply with the minimum setback could create more of a detriment to public safety than extending E. Meadowgrass as a straight, predictable travel lane. The City Council should listen to any public testimony offered concerning whether or not the surrounding property owners feel that the requested variance will negatively affect their properties. D. That such variance will not have the effect of altering the interest and purpose of this Title and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the issuance of a variance to allow a 13.65-foot building setback does not have the effect of altering the purpose and interest of the Zoning Ordinance. There is still adequate space between the sidewalk and the building to provide landscaping or other private yard amenities/features. One ofthe interns of the required setback is to help create a more uniform appearance along a block. It is unlikely the 6-foot encroachment will have much of an affect on the uniformity. The variance application lists an infill policy from the Comprehensive Plan to support the application STAFF RECOMMENDATION While staff believes there may be ahernatives to granting the variance (as noted above), we find the required findings to be substaatially met and we recommend approval of the application. vac-0saoz e~area«axo.asmvac