HomeMy WebLinkAboutKelley Carport CUP-06-034
, . .; ---".. .. ~'l'~ '~ .'i-~'Il
'. - - " L },.}
NOV 0 9 2006
"-".-'
"
olferii/!f4 '
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request to allow a 200 square foot canvas
carport in the 0- T zone, by Larry and Judy Kelley.
Case No(s). CUP-06-034
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: November 2, 2006 (Denial
Findings approved on November 16,2006)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2,2006
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2,2006
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of
November 2,2006 incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of November 2,2006 incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. ~67~6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified
Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps
thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the
Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6,
2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The decision to deny this request shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to
Meridian City Code ~ II-SA.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-06-034 - PAGE I of 4
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. That the City has granted an order of denial in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the
Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and
any affected party requesting notice.
6. That this denial is based upon the findings in the attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of November 2,2006 incorporated by reference.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City
Code ~ II-SA and Idaho Code 67-6519 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of
Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The subject carport be removed from its current location within 15 days of final
Commission action on this application.
2. The following actions could be taken to obtain the permit requested;
a. Obtain a license agreement from the Ada County Highway District allowing for
the encroachment in to the right-of-way;
b. Completely remove any visual obstruction from the required clear vision triangle.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a
maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City.
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,
and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or
structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the
final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with
multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the
event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple
phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year
from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the
one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and
void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the
period in accord with 11-5B-6.G.I, the Director may authorize a single extension ofthe
time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional
time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the
Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may
require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-06-034 - PAGE 2 of 4
Title II.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat
or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis.
Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than
twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request
for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for
Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of
this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2,2006.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-06-034 - PAGE 3 of 4
By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the \ Lb-th-
day of f\fC\vrm\rx:v ,2006.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM
(Chair)
VOTED ~ I::.-
COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE
VOTED lJi Q-,
COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY
VOTED I ?f--Y'
COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP
VOTED~
COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA
VOTED+
Attest:
Tara Green, Deputy City~ler _
- 7. #.-
- ~ -
~ -
~ "" ~
~ "<l. r 1S'l . .f?.$.
Copy served upon Applicant:<I;h~gj ~'ment, Public Works Department and City
1/111 \\\\\
Iflllllllll\l\\
Attorney.
By: ShtuN\ &vu~
City Clerk
Dated: 11- 20-oG
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-06-034 - PAGE 4 of 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
SUBJECT:
Hearing Date: 11/2/2006
Planning & Zoning Commission
Justin Lucas
Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
Kelley Carport
. CUP-06-034
;:
oUeridt~ \
f
/'
'~~~
\
" ..
~~
\&~
-"....~~~.~:II..~~: )//~~'"
I Ll,\HO
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Conditional Use Pennit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the 0- T
zone.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicants, Larry and Judy Kelley, are requesting Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) approval to allow a
200 square foot canvas carport to be located in the street side yard of their property located at 403 East
Second Street. The carport has been in place for a couple of years and is currently being used to store a
vehicle. The subject property is currently zoned O-T (Old Town) and is primarily used for a single family
residence, which is a principally pennitted use in the 0- T zone.
Earlier this year the Code Enforcement division ofthe Police Department received a complaint from one
ofthe applicant's neighbors regarding the location of the carport. The neighbor expressed concerns that
the carport was located too close to the property line, and positioned in such a way that it blocked a clear
line of site when exiting the adjacent driveway. A code enforcement officer visited the applicants and
recommended that they speak with the Planning Staff to verify if the carport was allowed. Due to the fact
that canvas carports are not specifically addressed in the UDC, and that the downtown design guidelines
of the O-T district are geared more towards commercial uses, Staff recommended that the applicant apply
for a conditional use pennit to allow for the Planning and Zoning Commission to decide on this issue. As
a reference, in all residential districts (R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15 and R-40), one detached accessory building (a
building/structure is defmed as anything that is built or constructed) that is less than 200 square feet and
less than 8 feet in height, is allowed in the required rear yard.
NOTE: It is Staff's understanding that the applicants did inquire to the City about whether a building
pennit (or any other type of approval) would be required, prior to constructing this carport. The Building
Department did not require a building pennit at that time, as the structure did not meet the square footage
threshold for requiring a permit. Further, O-T does not have established setbacks, as several different land
uses are principally allowed in O-T. Also, the City encourages commercial buildings in O-T to be built to
property lines. The mechanism for Staff to evaluate if a structure complies with the adopted 0- T
standards is through UDC 11-2D-4, which requires all new construction in 0- T to obtain design review or
Conditional Use Pennit approval.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Below, staff has provided detailed analysis for the requested Conditional Use Pennit application. Staff
recommends denial ofthe subiect application. CUP-06-034. for the reasons outlined in the Analysis and
Department Comments sections of this rePort. The Meridian Plannine: and Zonine: Commission heard
this item on November 2. 2006. At the Dublic hearine: they moved to denv this application.
Kelley Carport CUP-06-034
P AGE I
<--
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
a. Sununarv of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Judy Kellev. Larry Kelley. Arthur Campbell. Robert E. Kelley. Scott
Chapin. Kami Kelley. Alan and Lola Dansereau (written testimonv)
11. In opposition: David and Jennifer Bourff (written testimony)
111. Commenting: None
lV. Staff presenting: application: Justin Lucas
v. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. - Sight vision triangle:
ii. - Encroachment into ACHD right-of-way:
c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Reconunendation:
i. - None
3. PROPOSED MOTIONS
Denial
I move to deny File Number CUP-06~034 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
November 2, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial.) I further
move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate [mdings document to be considered at the next
Planning and Commission hearing on November 16, 2006.
Approval
I move to approve File Number CUP-06-034 as presented during the hearing on November 2,
2006, and the site plan, no date, with the following conditions of approval: (add any proposed
conditions). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be
considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on November 16, 2006.
Reconunend Continuance
I moye to continue File Number CUP-06-034 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing
date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
403 E. Second Street, the northwest comer of the intersection of Second Street and Ada
Street, Section 7, T3N RIE
b. Owner:
Lany and Judy Kelley
403 E. Second Street
Meridian, ill 83642
c. Applicant:
Same as owner
d. Representative: Same as owner/applicant
e. Present Zoning: 0- T
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Old Town
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) approval to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport to be located in the side yard of their
Kelley Carport CUP-06-034
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
property located at 403 East Second Street.
1. Date of CUP site plan (attached in Exhibit A): No Date
2. Date of Building Elevations (attached as Exhibit A): No Date
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: We have done everything we were told to do from the
first time we went to the permit department years ago. We feel that since there have never
been any neighborhood complaints about our little canvas garage, since the setback code is
now right where the garage is and that it keeps one more car off the city street we would like
to keep the little garage (please see applicant's submittal letter).
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions ofUDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before
the Planning Commission on this matter.
b. Newspaper notifications published on: October 16th and 30th, 2006
c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 6th, 2006
d. Applicant posted notice on site by: October 23rd, 2006
6. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Single Family Residence
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This are is primarily a single family
neighborhood.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Single-family home, zoned 0- T
2. East: North East Second Street and single family home, zoned O-T
3. South: East Ada Street and apartments/Duplex, zoned 0- T
4. West: Single-family home, zoned O-T
d. History of Previous Actions: None
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer: N/A
Location of water: N/A
Issues or concerns: None.
2. Vegetation: N/A
3. Flood plain: N/ A
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/ A
5. Hazards: N/A
6. Existing Zoning: O-T
7. Size of Property: 0.08 acres
f. Conditional Use Information:
1. Non-residential square footage: 200 square foot canvas carport
Kelley Carport CUP-06-034
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER2, 2006
2. Building height: eight feet or greater
g. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to
the carport is taken directly form E. Ada Street. There are no sidewalks along this street and
edge of pavement is approximately four feet from the entry to the caI]Jort.
7. COMMENTS MEETING
On October 13,2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments
present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department,
Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staffhas included all comments
and recommended actions in the attached Exhibit B.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
This property is designated "Old Town" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Staff finds
the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed
development (staff analysis in italics):
Chapter VII, Page 106: Old Town. This includes the historic downtown and the true community center.
Uses would include offices, retail and lodging, theatres, restaurants, and service retail for sUITO\U1ding
residents and visitors. A variety of residential uses could include reuse of existing buildings for residential
uses, new construction of multi-family residential over ground floor retail or office uses. In order to
provide and accommodate preservation of the historical character, specific design requirements may be
imposed. Pedestrian amenities would be emphasized. Public investment to ensure that Old Town becomes
a centralized activity center with public, cultural, and recreational structures would be encouraged. The
boundary of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In several
areas, both sides of a street were incoI]Jorated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and
complimentary design of the faces houses and buildings.
Staff recognizes the importance of the Old Town area as the cultural and historic center of Meridian. The
obvious emphasis on quality design as mentioned in the statement above is an important aspect of the Old
Town District. Stafl believes that this CUP application does not meet the intent or vision of the O-T
district as described in the Comprehensive Plan.
9. ZONING ORDINANCE
a. Allowed Uses in the Traditional Neighborhood Districts: UDC Table 11-2D-llists the
permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the 0- T zoning district. Canvas carports are not
specifically addressed in this table. The Planning Director has determined that the CUP
process would be best suited for this type of structure and associated use.
b. PUI]Jose Statement of Zone: The purpose ofthe 0- T District is to accommodate and
encourage further intensification of the historical city center in accord with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the aT District is to delineate a centralized activity center
and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, quasi-public, cultural,
financial and recreational center of the City. Public and quasi-public uses integrated with
general business, and medium-high to high.density residential is encouraged to provide the
appropriate mix and intensity of activities necessary to establish a truly urban city center.
c. General Standards: The majority of standards that guide development in the O-T zone are set
forth in the document Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines. This document was primarily
designed for commercial uses in the downtown core. Further design guidelines for residential
uses in the 0- T district are being developed but no specific standards have been adopted by the
City.
Kelley Carport CUP-06-034
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
d. Clear Vision Triangle: UDC 1l-3A-5 describes the measurements of the clear vision triangle.
This clear vision area is designed to ensure the safety of pedestrians and motorists at the
intersections of two public streets or the intersections of a public street and driveway or alley.
This CUP application deals specifically with the intersection of a public street and a driveway.
The clear vision triangle in this situation is measured as follows:
For a public street and driveway or alley, the area is defined by measuring from the
intersection of the edge oftravellane and the comer ofthe driveway or alley twenty feet (20')
along the roadway and ten feet (10') along the driveway or alley.
The subject carport encroaches into required clear vision triangle, and may even partially be
located within the right-of-way.
10. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
Due to the unique nature of this CUP request Staff believes it is important to provide more
detailed background information in this section of the report. As stated earlier this carport has
been in place for a couple of years and is used to house a vehicle. At the time the applicants
decided to erect the carport they consulted with the building department to see if a building
permit would be required. They were told that a building permit was not required for a
structure of that type and size. Unfortunately, and by no fault of their own, the applicants
never consulted with the Planning Department and went ahead and placed the carport in the
location shown in Exhibit A.
The carport recently became an issue when one of the applicant's neighbors made a
complaint to the Code Enforcement Division of the Police Department about the location of
the carport, and potential safety hazard that it created. A code enforcement officer visited the
applicants and informed them of the situation. The applicants were invited to consult with the
Planning Department to determine the best course of action to legitimize the location of the
carport. Usually in situations such as this Staff is able to refer to the setback requirements for
the zoning district, and determine ifthe structure in question meets those requirements. For
example, in the R-8 or R-4 residential zoning districts the street side setback to a garage is 20
feet.
Unlike the standard residential zoning districts described above the 0- T ?One UReR the
document Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for the majority of its development
standards, including setback requirements. Due to the fact that this document was designed
primarily for commercial uses in the downtown core, the setback requirements are more
geared toward retail storefronts that would abut the sidewalk. These zero lot line setbacks
were not intended to be applied to single family properties. Residential design guidelines for
the 0- T zone are being developed but no specific standards have yet been adopted by the city.
The UDC compensates for this (UDC ll-2D-4D) by requiring a conditional use permit for
any applications that do not meet the criteria set forth in the Downtown Meridian Design
Guidelines. Staff determined that the subject canvas carport was clearly outside of the intent
of the design guidelines and therefore would be required to go through the CUP process.
Through this CUP process, and a more detailed analysis of the situation, Staff was able to
identifY various issues and concerns relating to the location of the carport. These issues are
outlined in detail below:
Clear Vision Triangle: After careful review, which included a site visit, staffhas determined
that the subject carport encroaches into the required clear vision triangle in this area. One of
the main purposes of the clear vision triangle, as described in UDC 1l-3A-5, is to ensure that
Kelley Carport CUP-06-034
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
motorists and pedestrians are able maintain a clear line of sight at the intersection of a street
and driveway. As the photographs in Exhibit A show, the carport is located directly adjacent
to the driveway of the neighboring property to the west. The location of the carport almost
completely blocks a driver's line of sight to the east as he or she exits the neighboring
driveway onto the street. This situation creates a hazard for both motorists and pedestrians
traveling along E. Ada Street.
Encroachment into the ril!:ht-of-way: Upon consultation with ACHD and review of property
lines in this area Staff determined that the carport appears to encroach into ACHD right of
way along E. Ada Street. ACHD informed Staff that a license agreement would be required to
place the carport within ACHD right-of-way. Currently the applicant has reached no such
agreement with ACHD and it appears that the carport is unlawfully encroaching into the
public right of way (see ACHD comment in Exhibit B).
Desi!Zl1: As mentioned earlier in this report the UDC and the Downtown Meridian Design
Guidelines do not specifically address canvas carports. With that said, Staff is concerned
about these types of structures being located adjacent to public streets on this site or in any
area ofthe city. Staff believes that semi-permanent canvas and steel structures such as these
should be located out of the public view, especially in residential areas. Staff is concerned
that allowing for the subject carport to be located as shown in Exhibit A could set an
unwanted precedent for such structures in the 0- T district, and other districts were residences
are principally permitted.
b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial ofthe subiect application. CUP-06-034. for
the reasons outlined in Section 10 and Exhibit B of this report. Staff also recommends that the
Planning and Zoninl!: Commission instruct staff to prepare a letter addressed to the applicant.
requiring the removal of the caroort from its current location within 15 davs of final Commission
action on this application.
Kelley Carport CUP-06-034
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
11. EXHmITS
A. Drawings
1. CUP Site Plan: No Date
2. Carport Pictures (4)
B. Department Comments
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Sanitary Services
6. Central District Health Department- Environmental Health Division
7. Ada County Highway District
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Kelley Carport CUP-06-034
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
A. Drawings
1. CUP Site Plan
-;;';;, :." tV
\\V, ---') ""-"""'~-'"f,\~i.".,~~':~7;>>
.,,~'~)
k ~-
/\,
/
,.
."
--~;'J~...
-;;~
--=
Exhibit A Page 1
d
~.
i ~ ,:;,)
tl~' ~
I ~"".,
3 IlS ,( ...: ,::)
i J-..Gll \.~~ ~
, '\::s '(
j :s:~ ),
en I---:> c-: .~,
I -->. 'lI-~,~
I v -.;,t
I' ~ \1\ . -,'
't... or_".
'--. <"l .....,
I \:i ~ %::: ~
! ~" '-
i
I
i
I
i
I ~l
, c
I
i -;,-
Il-
l IJ1.>
I E
\
~ --;-..
~ ~
\I ,,"
LJ..
~ '- C\
j ~ "'-
-fi ~ ~I
"'tJ{-
-,
o
<:
~
-:0- --.,;: oJ 'i;
-! -~; ~~
~ ~. G.~-
+ ~q/'~
'--: -e, 0 "'-
() "---./
.. . .,
.
'-1"
3.....
""
. .~
""""2-
-r.- -~I~<"'"::~~+~''''~''~~r~'-!-~'~~>l
':: ;~\, ., ;:;;Z, 1 . q <'.I ;;" , . ,
"I:' -.'1:. -,,''''': '"'--.',,:> I ,'!,.. ,;;lhDJfljS '"
, . ~ ~ ), ..-....-____..___,,~_~__..r I ~
, ~o / l~ hi;
J,.'-.~,f. ' .". ~ {. ~~h'l~l
f 't
{i ~!
.J. ~ ~
.r ~ \::o!,- "'I
T ~ -<"~1?;,y--,.l ~I
l' ~ ~ __n_________J {1
"ok .:::s ~~~~~_;;yI#Jr)"J""'p'r!_
(-c_._"_._<: -:t
.... ~/
r!~~)
....'''.,
C~.....~ ("'\
._-It_,
'--"/d-<'--' ,I
<>
"b
~.
:%-;-< i
~~,.~
.'-........,...-
~;,.."Id
',2~!"c?_ {.j-l~
+-
...
o
0-
'-
j,tJ/ 1,1:;;
,.F~O
.~; .-.-- - -- -.----., _U___'-:;::'_ ;JJ;~- -t};-'j-~il7h 'PJ b'~'--
, / !.. ,," _J, '/ --l- ;) i??_.::"7
-" '
'"",
O?v
:~;j-
~
-J~
g
+-
In
'\S
c-
~
ll]
~
c
"-
:>--
"-
,
'f--
<:l
,~
\.
t'--
t'-
X.
,
'"
--3
o
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
2. Carport Pictures
View looking east down Ada Street. The neighbor's driveway is shown where the truck is parked and the
majority of the Kelley property is behind the carport.
Exhibit A Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
Another view of the neighbor's driveway and carport.
Exhibit A Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
This view demonstrates the proximity of the carport to the carport to the neighbors driveway.
Exhibit A Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
This view shows the carport and neighbors property and demonstrates how the carport encroaches into the
clear vision triangle.
Exhibit A Page 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
This view demonstrates what motorists traveling west on Ada Street may see. Note that the truck behind
the carport is out of view completely.
Exhibit A Page 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2,2006
B. Department Comments
1. Planning Department
1.1 The PlalUling Department recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission instruct Staff
to prepare a letter requiring the applicant to remove the carport from its current location within 15
days of final Commission action on this application.
2. Public Works Department
2.1 The Public Works Department has no comment on this application.
3. Fire Department
3.1 Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction.
3.2 The Fire Department is concerned about the clear vision triangle on this site and the ability of the
neighbor to the west to back out of their driveway and maintain clear visibility.
4. Police Department
4.1 The canvas carport is adjacent to a driveway on the adjoining property. This configuration limits
the neighbor's visibility to the east when exiting their driveway. This creates an unsafe situation
for motorists and pedestrians traveling along East Ada Street.
5. Ada County Highway District
5.1 In an email dated October 23, 2006 Ryan McDaniel from the Ada County Highway District
submitted the following comment: "ACHD has not entered into a license agreement with any
applicants on that roadway for a carport. We will allow them, if and only if the individual enters
into an agreement. All the research I have completed today leads me to conclude that the
applicant has unlawfully encroached into the public right-of.way."
Exhibit B Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
CUP Findings:
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit reqnest upon
the following:
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Commission finds that the portion of the site where the carport is located is not large enough to
accommodate the carport structure. The carport clearly encroaches into the required clear vision
triangle and should be removed from its current location.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
in accord with the requirements of this Title.
Commission fmds that the designated Comprehensive Plan Designation for this property is Old
Town. Commission finds that the location of the carport structure is not consistent with the
purposes or intent ofthe Old Town designation.
3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of
the same area.
Commission finds that the carport structure is incompatible with neighboring uses. Commission
also finds that the intended character of the Old Town area would not support such structures to
be visible from public streets.
4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Commission fmds that the proposed use does have an adverse affect on other properties in the
vicinity. The main issue that Commission has identified is the safety hazard created by placing
the carport in the clear vision triangle.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage
structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
Commission fmds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are
currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the
Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation
and AClID.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
Exhibit C Page I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes,
glare, or odors. Staff finds that the proposed use may be detrimental to people, property or the
general welfare of the area due to the potential danger to pedestrians and motorists caused by the
placement of the carport within the clear vision triangle.
8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Commission fmds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any
natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance.
Exhibit C Page 2