Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: JANUARY 6,1998 APPLICANT: BRIGHTON CORPORATION ITEM NUMBER: 9.2~ ~ 3 REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDNISION N0.4 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENG~~'~" ~~ ~ ~l~ ~~~ o'~ oL l~y~/~' ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ,~~ l'g AL OMMITTEE: CEO TRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION' SETTLERS IRRh' us wr (~ cl ~~~ ~ INTERM~ " I / tl BUREAU l w~a~p,.S OTHER.. ~ ~`"' All Materials p ". ~ ~f COMMENTS .~ y ~~ ti~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~' ,;~ ~~ ~~' ra/~ ~ ~~r~31' ~~~..~ C~~ G~~ rtY of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: DECEAA¢ER 16.1997 APPLICANT: , ~ GHTON COR~~ TION ITEM NUMBER: 13 , , , REQUEST: PUBIC HEARING: VARIAN CE FOR BEDFORD P LACE SUBDMSION N0.4 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER; CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CfTY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL. DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS "REVIEWED.' SEE ATTACHED COAMENTS ~ ~`~ ~~ ~iL zihl G~k OTHER: A 1 INaterials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~. • • BEFORE THE 1~RIDIAN CITY COUNCIL BRIGHTON CORPORATION . VARIANCE APPLICATION 1650 FEET EAST OF r~:RIDIAN ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF USTICR ROAD 1~RIDIAN, IDASO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CO~TCLIISIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing December 16, 1997, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner David W. Turnbull, appearing, the City Council of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FII~IDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of a public hearing on the Variance Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for December 16, 1997, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 16, 1997, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; that a hearing on the matter was scheduled, noticed and held on December 16, 1997 . 2. That this property is located within the City of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW /VARIANCE Page - 1 Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of the property which is described in the application which description is incorporated herein, and have consented to this application.. 3. That notice of public hearing is required to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E., 11-2-419 D., and 11- 9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met. 4. That the property is zoned R-8 Residential. 5. That The Applicant stated in his Application for Variance, that the front yard setback was 20 feet and he desired to reduce that to 10 feet. Ordinance 11-2-410 A, Zoning Schedule of Bulk and Coverage Controls, requires in the Residential (R-8) zone that the Minimum Front Setback Requirement is twenty (20) feet. 6. That the Applicant has requested that he be granted a variance from the above front yard setback requirement so that the sunroom, which has already been constructed by Mrs. Helen V. Davis, who has a life estate in the property during her. lifetime, and which encroachment of the front yard setback of the twenty foot requirement, requires a ten foot front yard setback. 7. The Applicant stated at the hearing for the Variance as follows: In response to Commissioner Morrow' s comment about how Mrs . Davis would handle the matter if the variance was not granted, Mr. Turnbull stated she would probably be upset and that they would be ~n trouble with her. He stated that she is 85 or 87 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW /VARIANCE Page - 2 years old, and that she recently this winter she had a stroke. He presented some plans for a proposed building of some ramps to Mrs. Davis's front door and some of those things. to accommodate her. He thought the addition to her home made a lovely addition. It provides a nice sunroom and something she would like to have maintained. 8. Commissioner Morrow commented that the property is annexed into the City and it is a City lot. 9. Mr. Turnbull stated that this is not a platted lot as of yet, it is a part of what is the proposed Bedford Place Subdivision No. 4. It was not in the City when she built her home, as it is an older home. 10. Councilman Morrow commented that when the sunroom was built if it was not in the City? 11. Mr. Turnbull stated he doesn't believe and doesn't know if the annexation ordinance was final at that time. 12. Commissioner Morrow questioned as to what process did this go through that allowed the .setback to be violated? 13. Mr. Turnbull commented that there was no lot at the time so there was no violation of any setbacks since there wasn't a lot. 14. Commissioner Morrow continued the discussion with a question if there was a building permit required. 15. Mr. Turnbull stated he couldn't tell him whether she obtained a building permit or not. 16. Commissioner Morrow's added comment to Mr. Turnbull's response, was that if Mrs. Davis handled all c-f this affair on her FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION/VARIANCE Page - 3 own, and if he was left-trying to clean this up, and asked if that was what he was trying to do tonight. 17. Mr. Turnbull's response was yes, and he thought Mrs. Davis went ahead and got her permits and everything and did everything according to the rules. That this was just a conflict between the final plat that is proposed and which is in accordance with the preliminary plat, but after the preliminary plat was approved he thought she had a little extra money after he bought the land so she built herself a nice sunroom. 18. Commissioner Morrow stated that he certainly understood that, and that at 85 years old you write your own rules. Having said that, it doesn't help us a lot with not very far in the distant future with the property. He proceeded to ask the question, "When Mrs. Davis has a life estate, at that point in time when she is deceased where does the property go?" 19. Mr. Turnbull stated that the Brighton Corporation owns the property and then Brighton Corporation would take control of the property. 20. Commissioner Morrow asked if Mr. Turnbull would be agreeable at that point in time to correct the variance to the setback if your variance is approved conditionally that at that point in time that Brighton takes control of the property or sells the property that a condition be that the sunroom be removed and the 20 foot setback be honored. 21. Mr. Turnbull addressed the Mayor and Counil with the response that they could certainly do that if it was required. He FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION/VARIANCE Page - 4 • continued by saying given the fact that the garage is setback, there is actually more than sufficient area for off site parking with that garage and given the fact that the sunroom is a valuable improvement and doesn't otherwise create a negative to the subdivision. It wouldn't be his preference to remove that room. It is a bit counter productive is what he thought. 22. Commissioner Morrow commented that he understood his concern, but Commissioner Morrow's perspective is that they are trying very hard to maintain certain setbacks so there is consistency and certainly present owners in Bedford Place, and future owners in Bedford No. 4 to have some reasonable expectation of everybody having the 20 foot front yard setback. It seems to him to make a certain amount of sense to keep that. Coupled with the fact from his standpoint if the City grants a variance such as this then all of a sudden everybody needs a sunroom. This makes a tremendous amount of work for our staff already and future Council's and Mayor's. 23. Mr. Turnbull then commented to the Mayor and Councilman Morrow that he understood their point, and that they were not trying to set some kind of particular precedent that the City would have trouble dealing with in the future. He thought everyone would have to admit this is an odd set of circumstances. Commissioner Morrow agreed. 24. Councilman Tolsma questioned the access to Ustick Road off this property. 25. Mr. Turnbull's comment to that question was that it will FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION/VARIANCE Page - 5 • access off of Edgar Street. Councilman Tolsma asked if they will close the access that goes back out to Ustick, and Mr. Turnbull stated yes, that was an ACHD requirement. 26. Councilman Rountree added his comment to the fact that he agreed that they needed to be consistent with the setback. 27. Mayor Corrie inquired if the lot was that of Lot 5, Block 6 or Lot 4. Mr. Turnbull responded that it was Lot 5, Block 6, and that it is the wider lot, 79 feet wide. 28. Gary Smith's questioned if you proceed along the lines of allowing the variance for an indeterminate period of time while a life estate is still in existence how would the City keep track of when it is not in existence? Somebody is going to have to look out for when it is no longer a life estate and it belongs to Brighton Corporation. 29. Commissioner Morrow commented to Mr. Smith's. question by stating he thought if they opted to leave it in position while Mrs. Davis is exercising the life estate, certainly upon her death, then the life estate terminates and either the City would have to be aware of when that event occurred or Brighton would have to inform the City, that is when it would activate the other issues. Mr. Smith responded that he understood that, but he didn't really know how that happens. Commissioner Morrow commented that a deed restriction could be done, and that it couldn't transfer until those conditions would be met. 30. Mayor Corrie asked if David Turnbull owned the house, and he stated yes, and that it is not as old as Mrs. Davis, he FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION/VARIANCE Page - 6 • thought it was around 40 years old. Councilman Tolsma commented to the age issue, and thought it was about 50 years old. 31. Commissioner Morrow's final comment was that if the variance was going to be granted, then he wanted to see it be conditional where it was tied to the life estate at the point that the life estate is no longer in effect and that the setback be honored. 32. Councilman Rountree closed out the hearing on this matter with his comment as opposed to monitoring and tracking this, that it be done as a deed restriction. 33. The City Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, had no comments to the Variance. (70~NCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. 3. That the City Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the Zoning Ordinance and upon the record submitted to it and the thinos FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION/VARIANCE Page - 7 upon which it may take judicial notice. 4. That the Council may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 5. That the following provisions of Section 11-2-419 A, of the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the Application: 11-2-419 A. The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. No non- conforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted or non- conforming use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for issuance of a variance. Variances shall be granted only where strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary. hardship. A variance application does not go to the Commission unless directed by the Council. 6. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows: 11-2-419 C. FINDINGS A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of a public hearing) the Council makes a statement of supportive reasons based directly on the evidence FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION/VARIANCE Page - 8 presented to it which supports conclusions that the mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have been met by the applicant and unless all of the following exist: 1. That there are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the unreasonable; strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or 2. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer because of unusual topography, other physical conditions or other conditions which are not self-inflicted, or that these conditions will result in inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of this Ordinance; 3. 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; 4. That such variance will not have the effect of altering the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 5. That a deed restriction is required to be entered into with Brighton Corporation with regard to the life estate of Helen V. Davis, and that at her demise the property shall resort back to the 20 foot setback requirement. 7. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant but the owner of the property, Helen V. Davis, owned the property prior to development and the variance allows her to continue to live in her home until she moves or dies. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION/VARIANCE Page - 9 8. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically concluded as follows: a. That there• are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of the set back Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable. b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the set back Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the applicant as a result of factors not self-inflicted. c. That the granting of the specified variance would not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated. d. That such variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the set back Ordinance or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That it is concluded the Application should be granted as long as a deed restriction is entered into. 10. That in the written Application the Applicant requested variance of the tiling of the South Slough Stub; at the public hearing no evidence was presented about this variance and it is not granted. The only variance granted is that of the 20 foot front setback requirement. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION/VARIANCE Page - 10 s • APPROVAL OF FII~IDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN BENTLEY COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) APPROVED: VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED DISAPPROVED: D$CISION It is hereby decided that the variance of the setback ordinance is hereby granted upon the condition that a deed restriction be entered into with Brighton Corporation, and the Applicant shall be required to have the 20 foot setback reinstated after the life estate of Helen V. Davis is no longer valid on the property. MOTION: GRANTED DENIED Brighton Corporation setback Variance 01-02-98 -- Final FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHTON CORPORATION/VARIANCE Page - 11