HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff CommentsHUB. OF TREASURE VALLEY
MAYOR A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Taimny de W eard
CTTY C.OUNCn, MEMBERS
Keith Bird
William L.M. Nary
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 466-9272 • Fax 4664405
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 898-5500 • Fax 887.1297
Shnm Wardle (208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 8874813
City Cledc Office Fax (208) 8884218 PLANNING AND 7ANING
DEPARTMENT
Chazles M. Rountree (208) 8845533 ~ FAX 888-6854
STAFF REPORT: Hearing Date: February 24, 2004
Transmittal b
~~~~
To: Mayor and City Council
FEB 2 C 2Ci~W
From: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Principal City Planner City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Re: Silverstone Corporate Center & Business Campus Subdivision -Variance
Request for a Variance from Meridian City Code (MCC) 11-9-1 (Building
Height), to Allow Future Buildings to Exceed the 40-foot Maximum Building
Height in a General Commercial (C-G) Zone, by Sundance Investments, LP
(File No. VAR-04-001).
The Plarming and Zoning sta„~'has reviewed the applicant's submittal, and we offer the following
comments and recommendations:
APPLICATION BACKGROUND(S[J11~1IVTARY
The applicant, Sundance Investments, has requested a variance from section 11-9-1 of Meridian
City Code (MCC), which prohibits buildings from exceeding 40 feet in height in the C-G zone.
As defined in MCC 11-2-2, building height is measured from the finished grade at the front of
the building to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs, to the deck line of mansard roofs, and
the top of building walls for gable, hip and gambrel roofs. The applicant is requesting a
maximum height allowance of 60 feet, a 66% increase, within approximately 44 acres of the
158-acre Silverstone development. No specific building elevations were submitted with the
application. The application also does not state how many future buildings may propose heights
which exceed the 40-foot maximum. The applicant is seeking a blanket vaziance for any future
building(s) located within the area further described in the application, primarily to allow for
three (3) story construction. As further explained under "Staff Recommendation," we do not
support a blanket approval and recommend any variance be tied to a specific building elevation.
The 44 acres proposed to allow the taller building(s) is generally located in the center of the
Silverstone development. Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 of Silverstone Corporate Center comprise 8.64
acres in the existinglbuilt subdivision and the balance of the subject property (approx. 35.4 acres)
lies south of the Eight Mile Drain and north of Copper Point in the Silverstone Business Campus.
The preliminary plat for the Business Campus (eastern half) was approved by City Council on
September 23, 2003 and the CUP/Planned Development application was approved on November
VAR-0I-ODI Silvers[we adgM lS~b.VAR
Mayor and Council
Transmittal Date: February 19, 2004
Page 2
18, 2003. To date, no final plat has been submitted for Silverstone Business Campus. However,
one building permit is allowed for the existing parcel prior to final plat recordation.
The applicant stated in their application that the hardship which prohibits compliance with the
ordinance is the "unique nature of the site" and a desire to "plan for heights that would allow for
three story structures." Mr. Larson also states in the application cover letter that the wetlands (as
classified by the Corps of Engineers) and the ACHD stormwater pond/facility limit the buildable
area within the development. Granting the variance would allow the developer to increase
building square footage on the site vertically rather than increase coverage.
After reviewing the application against the required findings, staff finds that two of the four
findings can clearly be met (C and D). Valid arguments can be made to both support and not
support Findings A and B. Since MCC 11-18-3 requires all four of the required findings be met,
staff does not believe there is sufficient evidence presented in the application to approve the
application. After the public hearing, should further evidence be presented which supports
Findings A and B, we recommend the City Council require an Amendment to the Development
Agreement which essentially conditions the variance to reduce the allowable coverage in
exchange for granting the increased height. (See "Staff Recommendation" below.)
LOCATION
The property is located on the south side of Overland Road, approximately a '/4 mile east of
Eagle Road. The subject area lies within both Silverstone Corporate Center and Silverstone
Business Campus. The property is designated as "Mixed Use- Regional" in the Future Land Use
Map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan.
North - ACHD stormwater facility, Eight Mile Drain and future commercial lots within
Silverstone. Jewell Subdivision, zoned R-1 (Ada Co.), lies approximately 800 feet north of the
north boundary of the subject area for the building height variance.
South -Future commercial lots within Silverstone, zoned C-G. Sutherland Farms Subdivision,
including both residential and commercial lots, lies approximately 300 feet south of the south
boundary of the subject area for the building height variance.
East -Future commercial lots within Silverstone Business Campus, zoned C-G. Rural
residential and agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada Co.), lies approximately 250 feet east of the
east boundary of the subject area. This land is designated future Medium Density Residernial on
Meridian's Future Land Use Map.
West - Silverstone Corporate Center, zoned C-G.
VAR~09-001
Slvnamne Heght Svb. VAR
Mayor and Council
Transmittal Date: February 19, 2004
Page 3
OWNER OF RECORD
Sundance Investments Ltd. Partnership owns all of the land located within the proposed 44 acres
of this application. Ada Courny Highway District owns the parcel (approx. 3.0 acres) north of the
E(ght Mile Drain. Sundance Investments has provided notarized concern for the subject
applications.
D INGS
According to Ordinance 11-18-1, Variances, 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 (MCC11-18-3), all of which must be determined before
granting a variance:
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;
The paragraph headers listed below are taken from the February 2, 2004 cover
letter by Lcuson Architects, P.A. oral his arguments for "special circumstances"
on this property:
ni a ite: Somewhat Agree. Silverstorm Business Campus Subdivision does
have a few features which are unique and reduce the amount of total buildable
area compared to other large, undeveloped parcels in Meridian. There are
classified wetlands on the west boundary which the developer has mitigated
through the U.S. Corps of Engineers. There is also a regional, 3-acre ACHD
stormwater reternion pond that must be retained and accommodated by Sundance.
Finally, the Eight Mile Drain is a sizeable irrigation facility, over 1,500 feet in
length on this parcel, with an 80-foot wide easement -- all of which is non-
buildable area (approx. 2.75 acres).
That being said, the question at hand is whether building heights should be
increased, which typically assumes there is limited land azea on which to build. If
all non-buildable areas aze subtracted from the 80 acres (i.e. Overland Road right-
of-way, ACHD facility, wetlands), there remains over 75 acres under the
developer's design control and influence. Would it be "impracticable or
unreasonable" to enforce the 40-foot height maximum and require more land area
to be utilized? In this regard, the site is not unique and could accommodate most
commerciaVindustrial uses.
Desire for Commercial/Mixed Use Building: Disagree. The developer's desire to
construct a commercial/mixed use building is not a special circumstance. The C-G
caning allows such construction. In addition, no elevation or site plan was
submitted with the application for staff to review and make findings from. (Note:
vnx.oa.oo~
SiNarem~ Hagla fi~b.VAR
Mayor and Council
Transmittal Date: February 19, 2004
Fage 4
We understand the applicant is willing to provide an elevation for the 2/24/04
hearing; but we did not have these in hand at the time of this report)
Potential Tenant Demands: Somewhat Agree. The application states the potential
tenant has a requirement for 12" access flooring and large volume HVAC needs,
thereby increasing the height of the parapets to effectively screen the roof
equipment. This is the primary reason for the increased height and for this
application. If one assumes an industry standard of I S feet between finish floors, a
3-story structure would require 45 feet of allowable height from grade. This is
only 5 feet above code versus the 20 feet being proposed. The application does
not divulge the tenant, how many buildings this variance would apply to, or the
size of the building(s) involved. Therefore, staff cannot confirm at this time if the
excessive HVAC area. and screenings are necessary or if there are other options.
However, assuming the building size exceeds 100,000 square feet, this would
certainly be a special and unique circumstance not replicated elsewhere in
Meridian.
If the City Council makes this finding in the affirmative, staff recommends a
limitation be placed on the number of buildings that are allowed to exceed the 40-
foot maximum height.
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 achievement or the
objectives of this Title;
As noted above, staff finds that strict compliance with MCC 11-9-1 would not
result in an extraordinary hardship to Sundance Invespnents because there appears
to be ample land available in this subdivision on which to build. Again, is it
unreasonable to require all buildings within Silvetstone to construct to the
allowable height?
Under the Zoning Ordinance definition of building height (see "Application
Summary" above), a 3-story, flat roof building would typically only need an
additional 5 feet of height (45 feet). The building height is measured only to the
top of the roof for flat mof structures. Again, since no elevation was submitted
with the application, this cannot be determined. But if the majority of the 20
additional feet being requested is only parapet ar other screening that is not part of
the roof; the fW160 feet allowance my not be necessary.
We do find the wetlands and ACRD stormwater retention pond to be unusual
conditions.
VAR-04001 Shmbne H~gW Sub.VAli
Mayor and Council
Transmittal Date: February 19, 2004
Page 5
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;
Staff anticipates that the variance will not be detrimernal to the public's welfare or
injurious to other properties in the area. It is likely that some view corridors of
adjacent properties may be restricted compared to existing conditions. Neither the
City Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan contain policies or code which
require view corridor preservation or require new development to ensure this
property value is protected. We recommend the City Council review whether or
not such view corridors are part of the public's "welfare."
The City Council should listen io any public testimony offered concerning
whether or not the surrounding property owners feel that the requested variance
will negatively affect their properties.
D. 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 to allow 60-foot building heights within
the C-G zone within a commerciaUindustrial development does not have the
effect of altering the purpose and interest of the Zoning Ordinance. It is unlikely
the ordinance authors envisioned a facility of this size or magnitude within the
city limits. The variance application lists several Comprehensive Plan policies
which support the construction of new business and economic development
opportunities.
STAFF RFCOMMENDATIO
Staff recommends the applicant provide a specific building elevation in order for the City to
better evaluate the need and justification for the proposed height increase. We do not recommend
the City Council approve a blanket variance for an unknown area or an undetermined number of
structures. As submitted, the area should be legally described by a licensed land surveyor.
If approved, we recommend the variance be tied to specific building(s) and area(s). The
application demonstrates there are some special circumstances on this property which may
warrant a variance. However, staff does question whether these circumstances are directly related
to the need for increased building height.
If the variance is approved by City Council, staff offers the following as potential amendments to
the existing Development Agreemem andlor for additional discussion. (Note: we recommend the
DA amendment under the assumption that a variance cannot be conditioned apart from using a
DA or CUP. This may need input from the City Attorney.)
VAR-0b001 Silvanione Hep,Lt Sib. VAR
Mayor and Council
Transmittal Date: February 19, 2004
Page 6
In exchange for granting the increased height, the City Council could consider
reducing the allowable 70% coverage per lot and/or increase the open space on
the lot. This would have the effect of maintaining a similar floor-to-azea ratio as
currently permitted under MCC I1-9-1.
2. If the proposed building has a flat roof; the City Council could reduce the
maximum building height to 50 feet and still allow three story structures (based
on how building height is measured in MCC 11-2-2).
3. Staff recommends a new condition that, under no circumstance, regardless of how
building height is measured, no portion of any structure be greater than 60 feet in
height.
4. Staff recommends a limitation be placed on the number of buildings that are
allowed to exceed the 40-foot maximum height.
5. Staff recommends any area approved for increased building height be described
through a legal description, as prepared by a licensed land surveyor within the
State of Idaho.
vnaoaao~
~,~~m~~~.~~