HomeMy WebLinkAboutKelley Carport Revised CUP-07-012
CITY OF :MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
e~'di
erJr an
. ee
J/
p
J...
!~
In lhe MaUer of the Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for a 200 Square Foot
Canvas Carport in an O-T (Old Town) Zone, by Larry and Judy Kelley.
Case No(s). CUP-07-012
For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: July 19, 2007 (Findings
approved on August 2, 2007)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007,
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007,
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19,
2007, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of July 19, 2007, 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 967-6503).
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 hnpact 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 S
II-SA.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSiONS OF LAW AND DECiSiON & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-07-012
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian phuUling jurisdiction.
5. It is found puhhc facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Chair of the Commission 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 Site Plan, elevations, and the Conditions of Approval
all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007 incorporated by
reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet
such requirements as a condition of approval of the application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City
Code S 11-5A and based upon the above::: and [ure:::guing Findings of Fact which are herein
adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's Conditional Use as evidenced by having submitted the site plan and
elevation (no dates) is hereby conditionally approved; and,
2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff
Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007 incorporated by reference.
D. Nulil:e uf Applil:able Time Limits
Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please takc 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 pennitterl 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 bc 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 he 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.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the
CITY OF MFRmrANFTNOINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF r.AW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-07-012
time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional
time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as detennined and approve;:u 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
Title 11.
E. Notice afFinal 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 ofthe governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code S 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 July 19,2007
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-07-012
By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the
day of Au Cf'S'b. , 2007.
J. ncl
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM
(Chair)
VOTED~
COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE
VOTED ^,"b~
COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY
VOTED l..>.fA
COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN
VOTED
~-
COMMISSIONER STEVE SIDDOW A Y
CHAI
Attest:
\\\\\1111111/11
\\\\\ roC. ~/IIII
\.,,\.\...."'< '-"" I""
"...~' ,
~'v~ ~~\
" . ~~;..
$ 0 ~
- -
- --
- -
Attorney.
By: .~A-~~
City Clerk
8 ./ :$ -0 '7
Dated:
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-07-012
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF illL Y 19,2007
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: July 19, 2007 ~O /nTYOl'.1tS _.
(Continued from June 7th & July 5th, 2007~8rldian
Planning & Zoning Commission \~ ID....HO
Jenny Veatch
208-884-5533
- ."
"~
v
v
Jf
)
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Kelley Carport Rcviscd
. CUP-07-012
Conditional Use Pennit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O-T
zone by Larry and Judy Kelley.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applil,;3nls, 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 does not comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines, therefore a
Conditional Use Pennit is necessary.
A previous Conditional Use Pennit (CUP-06-034) on this site was denied on November 16,2006 by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. At the hearing, the Commission recommended actions the Kelley's
could take that would allow the Commission to approve a carport on this site. Since the previous
Commission hearing, the Kelley's have complied with these recommendations.
Last year the Code Enforcement division of the Police Department received a complaint from one of the
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 0- T district are geared more towards commercial uses, Staff recommended that the applicant apply
for a conditional use pennit to allow for thc 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 defined 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: The carport has been in place for a few years and is currently being used to store a vehicle.
It is Staff understands 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 pennit. Further, 0- T does not have established setbacks, as several different land uses are
principally allowed in O-T.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Below, staff has provided detailed analysis for the requested Conditional Use Pennit application. Staff
recommends approval of the subject application, CUP-07-012, for the reasons outlined in the Analysis
and Department Comments sections of this report. The Meridian Planoin!! and Zooin!! Commission
heard this item on Julv 19th. 2007 (continued from the June 7th hearing: due to imnroner noticing:
Kelley Carport Revised CUP-07-012
PAGE]
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFf REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
and the July 5th hearin2 due to the applicant beine: unable to attend). At the public hearine: the
Commission moved to approve CUP-07~012 with no chanecs.
.!h Summary of Commission Public Hearin2:
i. In favor: Judy Kellev
ii. In opposition: None
111. Commenting: None
IV. Written testimony: David and Jennifer Bourff
v. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood
vi. Other staff commentinll on application: None
b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. None
~ Key Commission Chan2es to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
3. PROPOSED MOTIONS
Approval
After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number
CUP-07-012 as presented during the hearing on July 19, 2UU7, 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 August 2, 2007.
Denial
After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-
07-012 as presented during the hearing of July 19, 2007 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 August 2, 2007.
Continuance
After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number
CUP-07-012 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 ofthe intersection of Second Street and Ada
Street, Section 7, T3N RIE
b. Owner:
Larry 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
Kelley Carport Revised CUP-07-012
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
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
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: Three years ago when this carport was built, the building
department told us no permit was required. The carport poles were set in "quick crete" for
stability and a sand and gravel base provided for drainage. Now we have removed the front
and first side panels to provide a clear vision triangle. We alsu alllJ.uired a license agreement
with ACHD to leave and maintain the carport within the right-of-way along Ada Street (please
see applicant's submittal letter).
5. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitutt: a llunditional use as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions ofUDC 11 ~5B-6, a public hearing is required before
the PI arming Commission on this matter.
b. Newspaper notifications published on: June 18th and July 2nd, 2007
ll. Radius nutillt:s mailed to properties within 300 feet on: May 291\ 2007
d. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 9th, 2007
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 O-T
2. East: North East Second Street and single family home, zoned O-T
3. South: East Ada Street and apartments/Duplex, zoned O~T
4. West: Single-family home, zoned O-T
d. History of Previous Actions: CUP-06-034 was denied on November 16, 2006 by the Plarming
and Zoning Commission.
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
Kelley Carport Revised CUP-07-012 PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
6. Existing Zoning: 0- T
7. Size of Property: 0.08 acres
f. Conditional Use Information:
1. Non-residential square footage: 200 square foot canvas carport
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 carport.
7. COMMENTS MEETING
On May 18, 2007 Planning Staffhc1d 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. Staff has 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 fmds
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 surrounding
residents and visitors. A variety of residential uses could include reuse of existing huildings 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 ofthe Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In. several
areas, both sides of a street were incorporated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and
complimentary design of the faces of 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. The carport is less than 200 square feet in size and therefore does not require a building
permit. Staff believes that this CUP application does not meet the intent or vision of the 0- T district as
described in the Comprehensive Plan. However, there are some circumstances on the subject property
that staff believes warrants approval. Further, staff believes that the intent of Old Town is geared more
towards commercial development and re-development of properties. This is not the subject case.
9. ZONING ORDINANCE
a. Allowed Uses in the Traditional Neighborhood Districts: UDC Table 11-2D-11ists 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. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the 0- T District is to accommodate and
encourage further intensification of the historical city center in accord with the Meridian
Kelley Carport Revised CUP-07-012
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the OT 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 thc 0- T district are bcing developed but no specific standards have been adopted by the
City.
d. Clear Vision Triangle: UDC 11-3A-5 describes the measurements ofthe 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:
F or a public street and driveway or alley, the area is defined by measuring from the
intersection of the edge of travel lane and the comer of the driveway or alley twenty feet (20')
along the roadway and ten feet (10') along the driveway or alley.
The subject carport encroaches into the required clear vision triangle. However, the applicants
have removed the front and fIrst side panels from the carport which now allows a clearer line
of sight from all angles (Please see photo exhibits A.2).
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 pennit would be required_ They were told that a building pennit was not required for
a structure of that type and size. Unfortunately, and by no fault oftheir 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 ofthe 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 if the 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 zone uses the
document Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for thc 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 intended
for 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
Kelley Carport Revised CUP -07 -012
PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
UDC compensates for this (UDC 11-2D-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 the first CUP (06-034) process, Staff identified various issues and concerns related
to the location of the carport. The Planning and Zoning Commission addressed these issues
and the applicants were directed to take certain actions to bring the carport into compliance.
The applicants have followed the Commission's recommendations and are submitting their
request for the current CUP-07-012. These issues and the subsequent actions taken to address
them are outlined in detail below:
Clear Vision Triangle: After careful review, which included a site visit, Staff determined
that the subj ect carport encroaches into the required clear vision triangle in this area. One of
the main pwposes ofthe clear vision triangle, as described in UDC 11-3A-5, is to ensure that
motorists and pedestrians are able maintain a clear line of sight at the intersection of a street
and driveway. As the "Before" photographs in Exhibit A show, the carport is located directly
adj acent to the driveway of the neighboring property to the west. Before, the location of the
carport almost completely blocked a driver's line of sight to the east as he or she exited the
neighboring driveway onto the street. This situation created a hazard for both motorists and
pedestrians traveling along E. Ada Street.
The applicants have now removed the front and first side panels ofthe carport (see
"After" photographs in Exhibit A). A much clearer view of the street and neighboring
driveway is available now to both motorists and pedestrians.
Encroachment into the right-of-way: Upon consultation with ACHD and a review of
property lines in this area, Staff determined that the carport appeared 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.
The applicants have acquired a license agreement from ACHD, #0731-1832-0107 (see
ACHD letter in Exhibit A.3), which allows them to leave and maintain the carport in the
existing right-of-way along E. Ada Street.
Design: As mentioned earlier in this report the UDC and the Downtown Meridian Design
Guidelines do not specifically address canvas carports. The carport structure, as well as many
other residential projects staff reviews, does not meet the Guiding Principles of the
Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines. However, it does allow the Kelley's the opportunity
to park and store their car on the majority of their property. With that said, Staff is concerned
about these types of structures being located adjacent to public streets on this site or in any
area of the city. Typically, Staff believes that sel11i-pennanent canvas and steel structures
such as these should be located out of the public view. However, because this is a comer lot
and there is very little area to construct a "permanent" structure/garage, Staff is supportive of
allowing the subject carport. This recommendation is not typical, and Staff call11ot envision
another instance where we would support a canvas structure in Old Town.
b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval ofthe subject application, CUP-07-
012, for the reasons outlined in Section 10 and Exhibit B of this report.
Kelley Carport Revised CUP-07-012
PAGE 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
11. EXHmITS
A. Drawings
1. CUP Site Plan: No Date
2. Carport Pictures: Before and After (10)
3. ACHD License Agreement Letter
B. Department Comments/Conditions
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Ada County Highway District
6. Central District Health Department- Environmental Health Division
7. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Kelley Carport Revised CUP-07-012
PAGE 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
A. Drawings
1. CUP Site Plan
1-
"-.._J~::
<~
-=
.;+..
\I
/
I
I
Exhibit A Page 1
d
~~u
~ .~,
+11\ ~ ~
"j,,,,,.J
"3 Ill' 'c.. .~: C)
i ~.:>..C~ \.,~ ~
'\:"\ '(
I :$~ ),
\n I ~ ~,~~
.. I ~ ~~
I "":>-I.!\' _t
<- '-,
'-. {V') q.."
tr q ;s:
I "'-..j 7:;- ~""
I ~
i
I
1
i
I .;sL
11
11
If'
I ,~
I ~
:,;J.
\
~ 4->
g If
~ ,,(}
? -{,. "
~ 3 \1
-F ~-\;, ~
~~ --
~
'" '-
I~12-t
~ ~ .-~-::,~
"i~v~
~J-O~
c:J a
~
.. & ..
"z..
.5>..
-~
,"00,
""2--
r" c~,~' r~~'~~ ~-'^ "~T~'~=;~~l
~\:'b' /~~:~ J t~t\ "~"M;S , i ~
.E / v:.r; ;
-l,--,J 'r ,- d'." -~ .}:]T=h" ~c
I i If-
-F ;
.1"
~i
._It..
J
~
:;,
~.~ _'/:.
~K'<'~] 1
_~_..::===*/P:r:~/~("~
('\
'"
tp
fJ)
:s
-:t
";('~
~:!~~ \
.....~--_.._-~:::,
~r:;l;.....
1
~
.~: ~
; l.-#-J
''l;,-''--''~'''''''''f.,l"
'jfo C:"?-\
'(V '.~~
..-..,'\.
C;""'" ~,
-, :p.
.-/d--;'.~J
l'
4-
....
o
Q..
l.-
e)
"",,'
~'<i
~~('"
.''-........,..- .
/~"Id
,I :
. "
C?'l-dJ ,~
~..- - j
. .
<>
"b
.-
<">.
(1)
,Q/
~...
, 't""'"''
.----~. ?f.-=-L~-_----'--'-'-"'~'-'~;:'--"5J,J';'-'-/:"';-"fJ7;;;' -;':.a;-~-'~--~
" " !'" j,,, ,.' () 'I 1 'J .'1'7 / / ~"
'f;' - ,.."v--/-....::c.
O,?//,
<:
~
,J
~
"
*
g
-+--
~
-c;
~-
C1.
+-
A. Vl
<:l'
! li.J
'..,
.
n
(
C
"-
0-
"-
"
'i-
'J
'-
'\.
t'---
t'-
X;
'\
~
--..3
o
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
2. Carport Pictures
Before: View looking east down Ada Street. The neighbor's driveway is shown where the truck is parked
and the majority ofthe Kelle ro ert is behind the carport.
Exhibit A Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF illL Y 19,2007
After: The front and fIrst side panels have been removed.
Exhibit A Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARlMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
Exhibit A Page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
After:
Exhibit A Page 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007
Exhibit A Page 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
After:
. -. l,~~j
Exhibit A Page 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
Before: This view shows the carport and neighbors property and demonstrates how the carport encroaches
into the clear vision triangle.
Exhibit A Page 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF mLY 19,2007
After: With the front and side panels removed, there is a better line of si ht from the street and drivewa
,.~ :
, '..".,:
" .' '<'~ "-t-' if.:,
Exhibit A Page 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
Before: This view demonstrates what motorists traveling west on Ada Street may see. Note that the truck
behind the ca ort is out of view completely.
Exhibit A Page 10
CITY OF MERlDlAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007
After: The area is more visible to edestrians and motorists.
Exhibit A Page 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8T AFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007
3. ACHD License Agreement Letter
/
""' -.......
~..;>!~i.\~
J\Clill-
-----,---~-.- .---
Oo........:<:r..Lor. ~
Jol1n s. Ff"andtn, PreslclMl;
Rebl:'-l.(l w. AmOlO, l~ Vice Presidl!:nt
Sherry It Huber, 2na Vfce Prt=Si(lent
OaYI!: BI.....ens, Commissioner
Carol A, MCKU, Comml:ss.toner
January 10, 2007
Mr. and Mrs. Larry Kelley
403 East 2"' Street
Mendlan, 10 83642
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kelley:
The Lie"".e Agreement to leave and maintain existing canvas carport within the public right of way
alo"g Ada Street for the property located at 403 East 2nd Street was considered and approved by the
Ada County Highway OfstnCI. Please remember to call Construction Services at 387-B280 to verify if
any addltlonel Construction Permits are required.
Enclosed is your copy of License Agreement outlining all the terms and conditions and assigned #0731-
1832-0107. Please use thiS number In all future correspondence regarding this malter.
SinC€!rely.
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
1/ J, (
t-Ct iM A- U{.fl eGd
Karen L. Amold
Right of Way Account Cieri<
Enclosure
Exhibit A Page 12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF mLY 19,2007
B. Department Comments/Conditions
1. Planning Department
1.1 The applicant shall be allowed to maintain the existing carport structure as shown on the undated
site plan in Exhibit A, provided the front and fIrst side panels remain removed from the carport
and a clear line of vision is kept.
1.2 All landscaping next to the carport shall be trimmed to maintain a clear line of vision in the sight
triangle.
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 wnstruction.
4. Police Department
4.1 No comment.
5. Ada County Highway District
5.1 No comment received.
6. Central District Health Department
6.1 No comment.
7. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
7.1 No comment.
Exhibit B Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
CUP Findings:
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request 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.
The Commission finds that the portion of the site where the carport is located is not large enough
to accommodate the carport structure without encroaching into the right-of-way. However, due to
the location of the existing home and trees, and the property being on a comer lot, there is not a
viable opportunity to construct a carport behind the house (where there is land available for a
structure of this size). The UDC allows propelties/ust:s in Old Town to apply for CUP approval
when all the dimensional and development regulations are not being met.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
in accord with the requirements of this Title.
Commission finds 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 of the Old Town designation. However, the Commission fmds that this use is
appropriate for this site, and this site only, due to unusually circumstances.
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 generally compatible with neighboring uses.
However, the location of the carport structure, near the street, is not ideal. Commission also finds
that the intended character of the Old Town area would not support such structures typically 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.
A letter was received from the neighbor stating that even with the front and side flaps removed,
the carport creates a visual safety hazard for motorists exiting the adjacent driveway and
motorists driving on E. Ada Street. The letter also states that the structure is non-aesthetically
pleasing from their prope11y. The Commission shall reft:rt:nl,;t: any ural ur written public
testimony provided regarding this finding. The Commission believes that by removing the front
and first side panels on the carport, it provides a better line of sight 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.
The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are
currently available to the subject property_ Please refer to any comments prepared by the
Exhibit C Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19,2007
Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation
and ACHn
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.
The 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.
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 .-eason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes,
glare, or odors. The Commission 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. The Commission shall rely
upon any oral or written public testimony provided to determine this finding.
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.
The Commission finds 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