Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff CommentsHUB OF TREASURE VALLEY MAYOR A Good PL~ce to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT Rohert D. Come CITY OF MERIDIAN (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WGRKS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS BLIILDING DEPARTMENT W illiam LM. N ~3' 33 EAST IDAHO (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 xeith Bird MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Tammy deW eerd (208) 888-4433 ~ FAX (2D8) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZANING City Clerk Office Fax (208) 588-4218 DEPARTMENT Cherie McCandless (208) 884.5533 ~ FAX 8886854 MEMORANDUM: March 19, 2003 To: Mayor&CityCouncil RECEIVED From: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Planner III /,~~ MAR Z 0 ZR~ City Of Meridian Re: Request for a Variance to Record Tramore Subdivision Final Plat by ~?$,1'. ~~FkvP'~ce Seargent, IC3, Inc. (File # VAR-03-0101 We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, uotess expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SUMMARY & BACKGROUND The Applicant, A.L. "Drew" Seargent of IC3, Inc., is requesting a Variance from Meridian City Code (MCC) 12-3-8, Approval of Final Plat, which requires subdividers to file approved Final Plats with the Ada County Recorder within one year of City Council approval of the Final Plat application. As noted in the application, the owner's representative for this development changed mid-stream in the development process and the one-time allowable time extension was not filed within the one year period. Tramore Subdivision's plat was required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder by January 1 S, 2003. The Applicant is requesting afour-month extension to May 10, 2003 in order to complete the recording process. As of now, the Final Plat for Tramore Subdivision is, according to MCC 12-3-8.A, null and void. In January 2002, the City Council approved two different but related applications for the subject property. The first was aPreliminary/Final Plat for Tramore Subdivision, atwo-lot non-residential re- subdivision of an existing, 5-acre parcel. This application was required in order to rectify an illegal split that occurred prior to application with the City. The second application was a CUP for a Senior Community by Thomas Development Co. to construct a 72-unit, age-restricted apartment complex on the north lot of the two-lot subdivision. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and building permit were issued for this development in October 2002. One building permit was allowed for the single, legal lot that existed prior to the illegal split. Last month, the City Council directed Staff to begin the process of reviewing and potentially amending MCC 11-18 and 12-11 to reduce the quarrtity and need for use of the variance process to ameliorate these types of situations. As Staff noted in our report for Baltic Place Subdivision (L.C. Development) last molrth, the required findings for variance requests such as this one cannot be met -primarily because the hardship was caused by the applicant and did not pre-exist. As an alternative to considering the plat null and void, the City has allowed applicarn's to submit Variance applications. Mayor and Council March 19, 2003 Page 2 LOCATION & ZONING The subject property is located on the south side of W. Pine Avenue, approximately 900 feet east of N. Linder Road. The Nine Mile Drain crosses the property, serving as the shazed boundary between the two lots. The two lots are zoned Limited Office (LO). REOUIItED FINDINGS According to Ordinance 12-I1-2, Vm-icmce Findings, the Council may authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of either the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance. Specifically, the Ordinance lists the following Findings, all of which must be determined before granting a vaziance: A. That there are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of this Title would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable. In such cases, the subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as to the specific provision or requirement involved; Applicant states that "by oversight and the rapid transfer of information" they were not aware of the January 15, 2003 deadline. Apparently, neither the property owner nor the previous engineedsurveyor conveyed the one year recording deadline. Staff does not find that the reasons cited above make the required submission of a time extension request impracticable and unreasonable. Council should rely on further explanation from the applicant to determine is there are special circumstances that affect this property in a manner that would make strict application of MCC12-3-6A or B unreasonable. B. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Title would result in extraordinary hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer because of unusual topography, the nature or condition of adjacent development, other physical conditions or other conditions that make strict compliance with this Title unreasonable under the circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements of this Title will result in inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of this Title; Staff finds that strict compliance with the requirements of this Title are not due to unusual topography, adjacent development, or other physical conditions of the site. Council shall determine if there are other conditions that make strict compliance with this Title unreasonable, or that compliance with the Ordinance will inhibit the achievements or objectives of this Title. One invention of Title 12 is to ensure plats are recorded and follow the requirements of Idaho Code. It could be azgued that the City has more assurance of this plat being recorded if this Variance is approved (since all but two of the required plat signatures have been obtained) than if the final plat is re- submitted. C. That the granting of the specified variance will not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated; Mayor and Council March 19, 2003 Page 3 Staff finds that the requested variance will not necessarily be detrimental or injurious to the public's welfare or to the other properties in the area as long as current ordinances aze met at the time of building permit for all lots within the subdivision. The City Council should rely upon any public testimony offered concerning whether or not the surrounding property owners feel that the requested variance will affect their properties. D. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the Idaho Code. Staff is unaware of provisions of Idaho Code that would be violated by the issuance of the requested variance. E. That such variance will not have the effect of altering the interest and purpose of this Title and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the issuance of a variance for this project will not directly alter the interest and purpose of the Meridian City Subdivision Ordinance, which is intended to ensure orderly development occurs within the established timeframe. The Applicant has stated they intend to record the subdivision. As noted in the Summary, Staff does not believe the required findings can technically be met for this or similaz time extension type Variance applications. However, since January 2000, the City Council has approved nine (9) such applications for either the one-year Final Plat submittal or the one-year Recordation requirement. Some degree of precedent has been established. If the City Council chooses to deny this request, the Applicant will be required to re-submit the Final Plat application. An approval will allow the Applicant to proceed with obtaining the remaining two signatures necessary before recording can occur. In either case, Staff will continue to research administrative alternatives to using the Variance process for lapsed plats.