HomeMy WebLinkAboutCrossfield Sub Setback Variance VAR-06-023
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
RECEIVED
NOV 1 6 2006
~kE~~~
oUe;id/;Jfl\
\~. lIJ,\HO )?
~~
Tn the Matter of Variance to UDC 11-2A~5 to allow front sethacks to he reduced to 10 feet
from back of sidewalk, for porches and side-loaded garages only, for all phases of the
Crossfield Subdivision, by Heron River Development.
Case No{s). V AR-06-023
For the City Council Hearing Date of: November 8, 2006 (findings on the November 21,
2006 City Council agenda)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2006
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2006
incorporated by reference)
3. Appli<<.:ation amI Property Facts (st:t: attached Staff Report for tile hearing date of
November 8, 2006 incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of November 8, 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. g67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council 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 conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code g
11-5A.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). v AR-06-023- PAGE 1 of3
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. It is found that public facilities and services required by the proposed development will
not impose expense upon the public if proposal is allowed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Mayor 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.
7. That this approval is subject to the findings listed in the Staff Report for the hearing date
of November 8, 2006 incorporated by reference.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code S 11-5A and
based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is ht:rt:by
ordered that:
1. The applicant's Variance Request to allow front setbacks to be reduced to 10 feet
from back of sidewalk, for porches and side-loaded garages only is hereby
approved.
D. Notice of Pinal 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 Rcvicw may bc filcd.
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.
E. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of November 8, 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSiONS OF LAW AND DECiSION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). V AR-06-023- PAGE 2 of 3
B~tion of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the
V.t'h1_(;.(/1j,2006.
2-{ 57 dayof
COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE
VOTbD ~
VOTDD~
VOTED~
VOTED fJt!:-
COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON
C01JNCTT, MRMRRR CHARLIE ROUNTREE
COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD
TIE BREAKER
MAYOR TAMMY de W EERD
--
VOTED
Copy served upon:
ATTEST:
By: ,~J\...lLt.J
City Clerk's Office
Dated: l \. 2 ~"QLD
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). V AR-06-023- PAGE 3 of 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Hearing Date: November 8, 2006
Mayor and City Council
Justin Lucas, Associate City Planner
Crossfield Subdivision Setbacks Variance
~;;di~ '\
":
\ _ IUM-IO ,y
-2,'" y
"'r~~" . ,. p
-'"~'!(r""",,~'y~~~>~
. V AR-06-023
Request for a variance to UDC 11-2A-5 to allow front setbacks to be reduced
to 10 feet from back of sidewalk, for porches and side-loaded garages within
all phases of Crossfield Subdivision.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUJ<.;ST
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 11-2A-5 of the Unified Development Code (UDe)
which establishes that street side building setbacks shall be 15 feet to the living area and 20 feet to the
garage, measured from the back of sidewalk in the R-8 zoning district. The applicant is requesting that
this measurement he reduced to 10 feet from the back of sidewalk for porches and side loaded garages.
The applicant's justification for the variance is outlined below.
2. SIJMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staffis recommending approval of the subject Variance application (V AR-06-023) for the reasons listed
herein. We find that the application meets all of the findings required in the UDC for the City Council to
grant a variance (see Exhibit C for required fmdings). At the public hearing on November 8.2006 the
City Council moved to approve this Variance request.
~Summarv of City Council Public Hearine::
i. In favor: Joe Atalla
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
IV. Written testimony: None
v. Staff presentinl! application: Anna Borchers Canning
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Kev Issues of Discussion bv Council:
i. - None
c. Kev Council Chan2:es to Staff Recommendation:
i. - None
3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Update
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number V AR-
06-023 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 8, 2006.
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number V AR-06-
023 as presented during the hearing on November 8,2006, for the following reasons: (you should
state specific reasons for denial.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number
V AR -06-023 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
Crossfield Sub Setback Variance V AR -06-023
PAGE 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
955 W. Ustick Road
Section 1, Township 3N, Range lW
b. Owner
Heron River Development, LLC
6223 N. Discowry Way, Suitt: 100
Boise, II) 83713
c. Applicant:
Same as owner
d. Representative: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions
e. Present Zoning: R-8
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting a vari;mce from the Unified
Development Code to allow the front setbacks to be reduced to 10 feet, measured from back of
sidewalk, for porches and side-loaded garages within all phases of Crossfield Subdivision.
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: "The granting of the variance would not grant a right or
special privilege that is not othetwise allowed in the district, as the Meridian City Council has
recently granted similar variances. Due to the roadside swales, the variance will relieve an
undue hardship because of the characteristics of the site. The variance will not be detrimental
to the public health safety and welfare."
4. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute a variance as detennined by City Ordinance. By
reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5, Article A (Table lI-
SA-I), a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
b. Newspaper notifications published on: October 16th and 30th, 2006
c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 13th, 2006
d. Applicant posted notice on site by: October 30th, 2006
5. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Being developed as a residential subdivision
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Single family residential
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Vacant land and residences, zoned RUT.
2. West: Proposed Southwick Subdivision, zoned R-8.
3. South: Meadow View Subdivision, zoned R-4.
4. East: Vallin Courts Subdivision, zoned R-8; Waterbury Park Subdivision, zoned R-4;
and two rural parcels, zoned RUT.
d. History of Previous Actions: This project has been acted upon various times by the City
Council. The first applications that were submitted included a request for annexation and
zoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use pennit approval (AZ-05-015, PP-05-0l7, CUP-
05-022). These applications were approved by the City Council on October 4, 2005. After
Crossfield Sub Setback VarIance V AR-06-023
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DA IE OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006
receiving the initial approval the applicant subsequently filed three [mal plat applications
which have all been approved by the City Council (FP-05-080 approved 1/24/06, FP-06-025
approved 6/22/06, FP-06-034 approved 8/8/06).
6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING
No agency comment meeting was held specifically for this Variance application. All affected agencies
were informed about this request and given the opportunity to submit comments to the Planning
Department to be included in this report. No site specific comments or requirements were provided for the
Variance application by other agencies.
7. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
The following UDC sections are pertinent to this application:
a. UDC 11-2A-5: Dimensional Standards for the R-8 District:
Street Setback*** to Garage (in feet) Local 20
Street Setback*H to Living Area (in feet) Local 15
***Measured from back of sidewalk
8. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Statf Recommendation:
1. Street Sections: The original preliminary plat for the Crossfield subdivision approved by
the City Council on October 4,2005, under former Meridian City Code (MCC) Titles 11
and 12, showed local street sections with 50 feet of dedicated ACHD right-of-way and
attached sidewalks (see Exhibit B). After approval of the preliminary plat the applicant
modified the local street section throughout the subdivision to include eight foot swales at
the edge of pavement and four foot detached sidewalks (see Exhibit B). This modification
to the street section was prompted by high groundwater in this area. The modified street
section was included in the fmal plat applications (FP-05-080, FP-06-025, FP-06-034)
that have been submit and approved for this development. All of the approved final plats
are subject to the current Unified Development Code (UDC) and building setbacks are
enforced at the time of building pennit submittal. The new street sections approved with
the final plats measure between 52 and 54 feet oftotal right-of-way.
2. Setbacks: Under the current UDC, which was adopted after the Crossfield preliminary
plat was approved, all setbacks in residential zones are measured from the back of
sidewalk and not the property line. Regardless of the fact that the preliminary plat was
approved WIder the old zoning ordinance, all of the homes constructed would be subj ect
to the current method of measuring setbacks (from back of sidewalk), because building
setbacks are enforced during building pennit review. In most cases this change would not
have significantly affected a subdivision, but because the street section was changed in
this subdivision to include swales and detached sidewalks, the front setback from the
street was essentially increased by four or five feet from the original preliminary plat.
After carefully considering this situation staff believes that persons who develop
residential subdivisions under the Unified Development Code have a reasonable
expectation of how the front (street) setbacks will be measured, and can configure the
buildable lots accordingly on the preliminary plat. As described above the preliminary
plat for the subject subdivision was approved under a previous development code, and the
method of measuring setbacks has changed upon adoption of the current UDC. This
Crossfield Sub Setback Variance V AR-06-023
PAGE 3
CiTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006
change in measurement, combined with the applicant's need to include roadside swales
created a unique situation where a site constraint and change in city standards
significantly affected the applicant's proposed lotlbuilding design. Due to this, staff
believes that applicant's request to reduce the setback for porches and side loaded
garages to ten feet from the back of sidewalk is reasonable. The applicant's requested
setback reduction will not necessarily change the required distance between the edge of
the street and any structure because of the inclusion of the eight foot drainage swale. If
you add up the proposed ten foot setback, eight foot swale and four foot detached
sidewalk, there will be approximately 22 feet of separation between the edge of the street
and any structure. This separation is consistent with what was approved at the
preliminary plat stage for this development (under MCC).
3. Building Type and Design: It is important to note that the applicant is only requesting a
variance to the front setback for porches and side loaded garages. This request is based
largely on the applicant's desire to create a streetscape that is less garage oriented, and
encourage the construction of porches and side-loaded garages throughout the
development. The applicant realized that the addition of eight foot drainage swales, and
change in setback measurement required by the current UDC, would significantly impact
the types of homes that could be built in the development. In an attempt to comply as
much as possible with the current UDC the applicant only requested this variance for
porches and side loaded garages. This limitation on the variance ensures that any future
homes in this subdivision that do not incorporate these more pedestrian oriented design
features will be subject to the standard setback regulations of the R~8 zone. Staff believes
it is important to note that pedestrian friendly design is something that is addressed in the
current UDC. The Traditional Neighborhood Residential (TN-R) zoning district was
designed to promote pedestrian friendly development similar to that proposed in the
Crossfield Subdivision. The TNR district allows for a ten foot front setback to living area
similar to what is proposed in this variance application. Unfortunately this zoning
designation was not available at the time the applicant submitted the original preliminary
plat for this project.
b. Summary Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval ofthe subject Variance
application (V AR-06-023) which reduces the required front setback for porches and side
loaded garages only to ten feet (measured from the back of sidewalk) for all phases of the
Crossfield Suhdivision (living space and street facing garages shall he required to meet
the standard setbacks of the R-8 zone as established in the UDC). Staff fmds that the
application meets all of the findings required in the UDC in order for the City Council to grant
a variance (see Exhibit C). At the public hearin2 on November 8. 2006 the City Council
moved to approve this Variance request.
9. Jl.:XHlBlTS
A. Site Map
B. Street Sections
C_ Required Findings from UDC (Variance)
Crossfield Sub Setback Variance V AR-06-023
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZON ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006
Exhibit A: Site Map
JI
\~
I
u __)
f UT
~ ---I
~
~
f,----
~
h-'-
~'-
~
~
1+-,-
~
~.
llJlllHOl
,. --1
ffilill ~ ~.
rnJI11Tlll\..' ," ~ tr. 'II
lWIlliIITU 0- ,H 1
I
~
\--------
l-~
--,-
--,-
--'- -
f----
f----
~
I--~
I-----'-'-
N
t
~.,
~.,
r '. .'.
>,....
~
~. ~
fc+- ,~
~ 'f----
.. f---- " "f----
:-,. ....., $\1":.' . ,... .
.: :~~."
L,"<
... ','".
~\i:' ....
~..
''':. ....,', ';"".,.~'
1::27 '.. ..... ~>l' ....,I.Jl.;Eb,
/ }.J ~-:T"'~ ,~'.. " CROSSFIELD ~ JBDIVISION
0J. ~~ I';..::;.':~:.: . .......... . ~~ LOCATED IN:~I~~~~~~~C ~ ~~I~~.' R.1W., B.R_8
~= - ~ ~I";!>~.~ ~CI~~ lAP -
:1,.:.
. r-'---
" " " ~ - ~'P1U'4'l -
.~.",,;...: , ~ O~ _ =
" ... - ,,,.", "', S f--- _ -------I-1-l
>, ,.'.. ~ ."A,-- r--- I I I
~"'. .....] 1 1- - 1//( 11
] ~ I l-ku'P1f~~("i 1 ~ ~nRn~
I 1 r I I I I I I 1 rl l4'EBlD'r'l ,,/ I
'>.'''''
'T ,:'
...b-
~,
--,-
\
"",-'.:".,
..~.'
"..~..
I
rTlTTl
I
I
r
Crossfield Subdivision Variance Application
Exhibit A Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006
Exhibit B: Street Sections
Local street section from preliminary plat (attached sidewalks)
~DM-.D-~lil~
(.<
'"
j ~\ ~,
.,
:'2
VI
in .~
~' '"
-E
:> :
u
....
& ii
e-
~
c
t "-
,g Z
'0
~ 1 a
i=
S u
w
'" (f)
0; l:;j
e
'" w
~ 0:::
D:: ill '", ~ I-vj
'0 "l r'l If)1-:
'" ::>:
--J
~
"11\1' 0
~~= l -'
ill .,::! ---l
ill 1 ~ t3
.c ""
:> .. a...
(I) 2
~ " u -~
:i5 "
"" ~ :>
t c:
-E ... :i
" .
:> " ....
u &.~
& E
:.". "
: '. U
'"
-'"
Q
~
-0
li1
in
'"
~DM-.o-~lil~
Crossfield Subdivision Variance Application
hxhlbit H Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006
Local street section showing drainage swales and detached sidewalks
~;':~;'::~;::;'.;;i\ f
-- T:~;rll
: i:~;l
: !j~; ~II
.__b:'1
,><0
~
'--
e "...'.,....
"
W
/-
0
f-
V)
I u
---.J
W ,",'
,,'
CD .",'
w.J ,"."
u.. ....
.'.
S
.'.
........~:..;.;.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:~
Crossfield Subdivision Variance Application
Exhibit B Page 2
""-FP,JD III
qt} ()
,'c:;~'" C> <'7':- .d
o(] V'''' 'c'." "
1Pj)~b .>f,u...MQt
~('?td?'J\O ,,~.:'a:~V ~ eJ D
,1) D ~.d. M ~ 0 0 V' "
o () "'v '" ~<a'" .~:::
4.,,(1" c.-., .;':s<r;t"" ~Q _ '.)
<J Q ",4:"4"0. 'li''' ~p6
Q,<l ~::. o~ ~ l!> "'#'<3. l
,00'" . ,..4.,!;f~C> ." ~_... i
'" ,,^ 'o!J' <I'> ".',,' A
(7 'i:\-~ ,~ -tJ""... -,
~ 0 ,/&<J ~. . -
~ ooC';:j .0 .,Q.II,.... (1
a. . D ~ 0.
<> 0'\ "" ~~ I
, o. ~
~
.~
~
~
a g
0" ' (
q ~ \
'" "d ~ <> h . 0
o , 'J" 0
",.0" . ;--01 < * . ~
~ 0 · Cf<J e.;' . - -
~ ad ~ .c;I ~ (j ~ ;'G: ~
"''' - _<_'-;rO'D~' ~il
u\1 &" qO~4~'~ <"~
<J <7 . ;.~,:o: ~r..\ '" ~.--<
('( .'~'1.a. q,
<'>"'v- .... CO> '. ,..0'", 61' .
'V 0 C\ ...",."
<> ~ ~ ....o~ ~ ~~ q 0 C:> ~
j) ~('{)C'~ · f~<;': -' ~ c;.. -
~\> D 9 O.j)~~~r""~~ '" ~V6l- 9
-0 <;jr::,.<>- <:/_
~p~ l;) ~ ~
0{)f 0"
,..,
~
~;
· i d
I dJ I,
';"
':'l
.
~
~
f-':
VJ
W
Z
o
f-
VJ
W
---.J
CO
CO
l_u
0_
~
l<:
""
~;
...
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006
Exhibit C: Required Findings from UDC (Variance)
The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67~6516 and all the findings
listed in Section 11-5B-4.E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a
variance, the Council shall make the followingfindings:
A. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed
In the district:
Council finds that persons who develop residential subdivisions under the Unified
Development Code have a reasonable expectation of how the front (street) setbacks will
be measured, and can configure the buildable lots accordingly on the preliminary plat. As
described in Section 8 of this report, the preliminary plat for the subj ect subdivision was
approved under a previous development code and the method of measuring setbacks has
changed upon adoption of the current UDC. This change in measurement combined with
the applicant's need to include roadside swales created a unique situation where a site
constraint and change in city standards significantly affected the applicant's ability to site
homes on the platted lots as envisioned with the preliminary plat. Duc to this, staff finds
that applicant's request to reduce the setback for porches and side loaded garages to ten
feet from the back of sidewalk is reasonable. Council also [mds that the proposed setback
reduction will not fundamentally change the distance between the edge of the street and
the structures and therefore is not a special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the
district.
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Council [mds that the combination of the high groundwater on the subject property which
required the applicant to include roadside drainage swales and, the change in setback
measurement that resulted from the adoption of the Unifit:u Dt:vdupmt:nl Cudt: (UDC), is
an undue hardship resulting from the characteristics of the site. Council finds that the
granting of the variance shall relieve this undue hardship.
C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Council finds that reducing th~ r~4uireu frunl setback for parches and side loaded garages
to ten feet measured from the back of sidewalk will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, and/or welfare.
Crossfield Subdivision Variance Application
Exhibit C Page 1