The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRequest for Director's Determination Joshua J. Leonard JLeonard@ClarkWardle.com April 12, 2021 Meridian Community Development Department Attn: Alan Tiefenbach, Current Associate Planner Meridian City Hall 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Request for Director’s Determination - Minimum Setback and Landscape Buffer Requirements under UDC. Dear Mr. Tiefenbach, This firm represents Blood, LLC. On behalf of the Applicant, we hereby request a Director’s determination on the Applicant’s request to apply the reduced 5’ setback requirement and the reduced 10’ landscape buffer requirement, both of which are contained in the City of Meridian’s Unified Development Code (“UDC”). Please take whatever steps are necessary to obtain a Director’s determination on the Applicant’s request for a Director’s determination as to whether the reduced 5’ setback requirement and the reduced 10’ landscape buffer requirement are applicable to the Applicant’s development of the Property (as that term is hereinafter defined). The subject property is addressed as 2560 S. Meridian Road in Meridian, and is identified by the Ada County Assessor as Parcel No. R9071450022 (“Property”). The Property is comprised of 1.06 (+/-) acres, and is within the City’s L-O (or Limited Office) zone. The L-O district is a commercial zoning designation. RE: Request for Director’s Determination - Minimum Setback and Landscape Buffer Requirements under UDC. April 12, 2021 p. 2 As depicted in the above image, the Property (depicted with a bright purple outline near the center of the above image) is located immediately adjacent to the City’s “R-8” zoning district (to the East of the Property) and Ada County’s “RUT” (or “Rural Urban Transition”) zoning district. The City’s R-8 zoning designation and the County’s RUT zoning designation both are residential districts. The typical setbacks required for properties located within the City’s L -O zoning district are:  Front Setback ................................................................. 0’  Rear Setback ................................................................. 0’  Interior Side Setback ............................................... 10’/5’2 RE: Request for Director’s Determination - Minimum Setback and Landscape Buffer Requirements under UDC. April 12, 2021 p. 3  Landscape Buffer to Residential Uses .................. 20’/10’2 See UDC § 11-2B-3.A., Table 11-2B-3 (entitled “Dimensional Standards in the Commercial Districts”). Importantly, however, both the interior side setback and the landscape buffer to residential uses include a reference to “Note 2,” which reads: 2 Minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure. UDC§ 11-2B-3.A., Table 11-2B-3, Note 2. Based on this plain and unambiguous language from the UDC, a reduced 5’ interior side setback (rather than the 10’ generally required) from adjacent parcels and a reduced 10’ landscape buffer (rather than the 20’ generally required) to adjacent residential uses are permissible “with reuse of [the] existing residential structure on the property.” Id. The existing residential structure on the Subject Property is being reused, thereby entitling the Property to use the reduced 5’ interior side setback and the reduced 10’ landscape buffer to residential uses. The following image, which shows the existing residence on the Property, was captured from the Ada County Assessor’s official website: RE: Request for Director’s Determination - Minimum Setback and Landscape Buffer Requirements under UDC. April 12, 2021 p. 4 When the Applicant asserted its right to apply the reduced 5’ setback and the reduced 10’ landscape buffer, however, City staff replied as follows: February 25, 2021, email from City staff, highlighting added. The position taken by City staff, that the reduced 5’ setback and the reduced 10’ landscape buffer only applied to “existing homes along arterials that may convert to office uses” was contrary to the pl ain and unambiguous language of UDC § 11-2B-3.A. (including Note 2), and Table 11-2B-3. The Idaho Supreme Court has established well-founded and longstanding standards to be applied by Idaho courts when interpreting laws, codes, statutes, and ordinances: The objective of statutory interpretation is to derive the intent of the legislative body that adopted the act. Statutory interpretation begins with the literal language of the statute. Provisions should not be read in isolation, but must be interpreted in the context of the entire document. The statute should be considered as a whole, and words should be given their plain, usual, and ordinary meanings. It should be noted that the Court must give effect to all the words and provisions of the statute so that none will be void, superfluous, or redundant. When the statutory language is unambiguous, the clearly expressed intent of the legislative body must be given effect, and the Court need not consider rules of statutory construction. State v. Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345, 362, 313 P.3d 1, 18 (2013), citing State v. Schulz, 151 Idaho 863, 866, 264 P.3d 970, 973 (2011), quoting Farber v. Idaho State Ins. Fund, 147 Idaho 307, 310, 208 P.3d 289, 292 (2009), emphases added. In other cases, the Idaho Supreme Court has held similarly: Analysis of a statute or ordinance begins with the literal language of the enactment. RE: Request for Director’s Determination - Minimum Setback and Landscape Buffer Requirements under UDC. April 12, 2021 p. 5 Lane Ranch Partnership v. City of Sun Valley, 145 Idaho 87, 175 P.3d 776 (2007), citing Friends of Farm to Market v. Valley County, 137 Idaho 192, 46 P.3d 9 (2002) (citations omitted). Where the language is unambiguous, the clearly expressed intent of the legislative body must be given effect, and there is no occasion for a court to construe the language. Lane Ranch Partnership v. City of Sun Valley, 145 Idaho at 89, 175 P.3d at 778, quoting Friends of Farm to Market, 137 Idaho at 197, 46 P.3d at 14, citing Lawless v. Davis, 98 Idaho 175, 560 P.2d 497 (1977). In the context of the Applicant’s request to apply the reduced 5’ setback and the reduced 10’ landscape buffer, three provisions of the UDC govern: First, UDC § 11-2B-3: UDC § 11-2B-3.A.1., highlighting and underlining added. Second, UDC Table 11-2B-3: RE: Request for Director’s Determination - Minimum Setback and Landscape Buffer Requirements under UDC. April 12, 2021 p. 6 UDC Table 11-2B-3.A.1., in pertinent part, highlighting and outlining added. Third, Note 2 to UDC § 11-2B-3.A. and Table 11-2B-3: Note 2 to UDC Table 11-2B-3.A. and Table 11-2B-3, highlighting. None of the above three provisions of the UDC is the least bit ambiguous, meaning that the “clearly expressed intent of the legislative body must be given effect.” Lane Ranch Partnership v. City of Sun Valley, 145 Idaho at 89, 175 P.3d at 778, quoting Friends of Farm to Market, 137 Idaho at 197, 46 P.3d at 14, citing Lawless v. Davis, 98 Idaho 175, 560 P.2d 497 (1977). Applying the “literal language of the enactment,” as instructed by the Idaho Supreme Court in the above-referenced line of controlling case law, the Applicant must be allowed to comply with the minimum 5’ interior side setback requirement and the 10’ residential landscape buffer requirement. City staff’s emailed comment to the Applicant that the intent behind enacting the reduced 5’ setback and the reduced 10’ landscape buffer was “to address the existing homes along arterials that may convert to office uses” (see full quote, above) is immaterial and does not govern or control the requirements that are applicable to the Property. Even if true, the UDC contains no such limiting language, which should have been included in the ordinance that adopted UDC § 11-2B-3.A and Table 11-2B-3. (including Note 2). RE: Request for Director’s Determination - Minimum Setback and Landscape Buffer Requirements under UDC. April 12, 2021 p. 7 The UDC, lacking the limiting language that City staff improperly and incorrectly read into these sections of the UDC, clearly and unambiguously authorizes the Applicant to use the 5’ interior side setback provision and the 10’ residential landscape buffer provision in developing the Property. The Applicant respectfully requests a Director’s determination confirming it. Sincerely, Joshua J. Leonard Attorney for the Applicant Cc: Applicant