Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments end't1-/i---.;\ IDAHO ~I 1~ ~j! C'~~ -'- ~~ ,,---, V_.,,;:i---- -I!IEII.S~:.-c I SINCE -,- , : 1903 MEMORANDUM: Transmittal Date: August 16, 2005 City Council Hearing Dat{'~~ï\rE--~ .~..."", I , ~ '. ,,- . .-..1 "j ~ -- (~ 1 _c'-f' To: Mayor and City Council AUt3 1 7 2005 From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner City Of Meridian ~:::;ity Clerk OÜìœ Re: Bedford Place Subdivision Variance . Request for a Variance from Meridian City Code (MCC) 11-9-1 (Minimum Yard Setback Requirements), to Allow an II-foot Front Building Setback on Lot 5, Block 6, Bedford Place Subdivision No.4, by Brighton Corporation (File No. VAR-O5-0l5). Planning and Zoning staff have reviewed the applicant's submittal, and we offer the following comments and recommendation: APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant, Brighton Corporation, has requested a variance from Meridian City Code Section 11-9-1, which requires a IS-foot front building setback for living space. There is an existing home located on Lot 5, Block 6, Bedford Place Subdivision No.4 that currently has a building setback of only 11 feet to the front property line. The applicant is requesting that the City Council grant a front setback variance down to 11 feet and approve the removal of the deed restriction that requires the home to be reconstructed with a 20- foot front setback. In the mid 1990's, before this property had been [mal platted, a family room addition was constructed on the existing home by a third party without Brighton Corporation's consent. In 1998, when Brighton Corporation went to final plat the property that included the subject residence, it was learned that the addition conflicted with where Edgar Street was to be constructed. In order to get the final plat approved, Brighton Corporation agreed to place a deed restriction on this property. The deed restriction agreement with the City states that Brighton Corporation acknowledges that the home on Lot 5 has a substandard setback but that Brighton Corporation agrees to conform to the 20-foot front setback once Helen Davis (the longtime resident of the home) is no longer living. Helen Davis has recently passed away and now Brighton Corporation wants to sell the property without resorting back to the required 20 VAR-O5-015 Bedford Place.VAR.doc foot setback. The applicant has stated in their application that they believe that the existing non-conforming structure is a benefit, not a detriment to the neighborhood. The subject application will in fact constitute a variance as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 18, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. Staff recommends denial of the variance application for the reasons stated herein. LOCATION The subject site is located on the south side of Ustick Road and on the north side of Edgar Street, approximately 1,800 feet east of Meridian Road, in Section 6, Township 3 North, Range I East. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North: Single-family residential, zoned Rl (Ada County). South: Single-family residential, zoned R-8 (Bedford Place Subdivision No.4). East: Single-family residential, zoned R-8 (Bedford Place Subdivision No.4). West: Single-family residential, zoned R-8 (Bedford Place Subdivision No.4). OWNER OF RECORD The property owner of record is Brighton Corporation and David Turnbull has provided notarized consent for the subject application. RE UIRED FINDINGS According to Ordinance 11-18-1, Variances, the Council may authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of either the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance. Specifically, the Ordinance lists the following Findings (MCC 11-18-3), 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; The circumstances of how this setback issue arose are unusual (see Applicant's letter). However, staff does not believe that the strict application of building setbacks on Lot 5, Block 6, Bedford Place Subdivision No.4 would be impractical or unreasonable. The applicant could, fairly easily, reconstruct the home so that it complies with all setback requirements. In fact, in 1998 the applicant acknowledged the substandard setback and agreed to comply with the 2a-foot front setback in the future. Therefore, staff finds that there are no special circumstances or conditions that make strict application of this title impractical or unreasonable. B. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Title would result in extraordinary hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer because of unusual topography, the nature or condition of adjacent development, other physical VAR-O5-015 Bedford Place. V AR.doc 2 conditions or other conditions 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; As noted above, staff finds that strict compliance with the City's Ordinances is not unreasonable under the circumstances. There are no unusual topography conditions; there are no other adjacent developments with a similar situation; nor are there any other physical condition(s) that make strict compliance with the setback requirements of Title 11 unreasonable. However, staff does acknowledge that if a variance were granted it would not inhibit the general achievement or objectives contained in Title 11. C. That the granting of the specified variance will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated; Staff anticipates that granting a variance will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other properties in the area. In fact, this structure has been non- conforming for several years and staff is not aware of any complaints from nearby property owners regarding the subject structure. Further, the applicant has contacted the surrounding neighbors and has received no opposition to the requested variance. 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 fmds that the issuance of the subject variance does not have the effect of altering the purpose and interest of the Zoning Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION MCC 11-18-3 requires all of the findings listed above to exist to grant a variance. MCC 11-18-1 states that variances shall be granted only where strict application of the provisions of this Title would result in unnecessary hardship. Although ~ of the findings listed above are present, staff does not believe that all of the required findings for a variance can be met for this application. Further, staff does not believe that the strict application ofthe setback requirements of the R-8 zone will not result in unnecessary hardship. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance application for the above noted reasons. V AR-O5-0l5 Bedford Place, V AR,doc 3