Loading...
Application Materials Adrienne Weatherly From:clerk@meridiancity.org Sent:Friday, May 28, 2021 10:06 AM To:Adrienne Weatherly Subject:Development Application Transmittals - Speedy Quick CR-2021-0003 Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Speedy Quick CR-2021-0003 Hearing Date: June 22, 2021 Assigned Planner: Alan Tiefenbach To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above “Link to Project Application” will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above. When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to cityclerk@meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thank you, City Clerk’s Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.888.4433|Email: cityclerk@meridiancity.org Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. 1 Adrienne Weatherly From:Accela Planners <AccelaPlanners@meridiancity.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 26, 2021 3:05 PM To:david@speedyquick.net; jleonard@clarkwardle.com; Alan Tiefenbach; Adrienne Weatherly; Charlene Way; Chris Johnson; Bill Parsons; Amanda McNutt; Steve O'Brien; Codee Krausch; Kelly Ready; Seth Oaks Subject:CR-2021-0003 : Speed Quick - Hearing Date Notification CR-2021-0003 Speed Quick This email is to inform you that the subject application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on 06/22/2021. The hearing will be held at the Meridian City Hall, 33. E. Broadway Avenue, in the City Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. The public hearing sign must be posted on the property under consideration not less than 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing. Proof of posting shall be submitted to the City no later than 7 days prior to the public hearing. Click the attached link for posting requirements: Posting Requirements 1 City Council Hearing Date: June 22, 2021 Planner: Alan Tiefenbach File No.: CR-2021-0003 Project Name: Speedy Quick City Council Appeal Request: Council appeal of Planning Director’s determination of denial for a reduced rear setback for new accessory structure, by Clark Wardle. Location: The site is located at 2560 S. Meridian Rd, in the SW ¼ of Section 1, Township 3N., Range 1W. Applicant name:DAVID BLOOD, SPEEDYQUICK Phone: Applicant address:629 E LAKE CREEK, MERIDIAN, ID 83642 Email:david@speedyquick.net Owner name:DAVID BLOOD, BLOOD LLC Phone:Fax: Owner address:629 E LAKE CREEK, MERIDIAN, ID 83642 Email:david@speedyquick.net Council Review Applicant Information Type of Review Requested File number:CR-2021-0003 Assigned Planner:Alan Tiefenbach Related Files: Subject Property Information Location/street address:2560 S MERIDIAN RD Assessor's parcel number(s):R9071450022 Township, range, section:3N1E19 Agent name (e.g. architect, engineer, developer, representative):JOSHUA LEONARD Firm name:CLARK WARDLE Phone:Fax: Address:251 E. FRONT ST. STE 310 Email:jleonard@clarkwardle.com Contact name:Phone:Fax: Contact address:Email: Project/Application Name:Speed Quick Description of Work:Appeal of Directors Determination on 5-5-2021. See Attached. Project Description Planning Division HEARING APPLICATION 33 E Broadway Avenue, Suite 102ƔMeridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208)884-5533ƔFacsimile: (208) 888-6854ƔWebsite: www.meridaincity.org 1 PRIOR APPROVALS Prior Approvals (File Number):A-2020-0135 PROPERTY POSTING I agree to comply with the Commitment of Property Posting regulations per UDC 11- 5A-6D: CHECKED APPLICATION DISCLAIMER I have read and accept the above terms:CHECKED Your signature:David Blood MISC Is new record:No Application Information 33 E Broadway Avenue, Suite 102ƔMeridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208)884-5533ƔFacsimile: (208) 888-6854ƔWebsite: www.meridaincity.org 3     Joshua J. Leonard JLeonard@ClarkWardle.com May 19, 2021 Meridian City Planning Division Attn: Caleb Hood, Planning Division Manager Meridian City Hall 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Appeal of Director’s Determination. Dear Mr. Hood, This firm represents Blood, LLC (“Applicant”). We are in receipt of your letter, dated May 5, 2021, which was in response to our request for a Director’s Determination, dated April 12, 2021, of Planning staff’s interpretation and implementation of the required Interior Side Setback prescribed by Table 11-2B-3, Note 2, contained in Meridian’s Uniform Development Code (“UDC”). We now write to request City Council review of that Director’s Determination, pursuant to UDC § 11-5A-7. This letter includes the information required to be included in a request for City Council review of a decision of the Director:  The decision being requested for review (UDC § 11-5A-7.A.1.) - see Section A, below;  The name and address of the person requesting the review and their interest in the matter (UDC § 11-5A-7.A.2.) - see Section B, below; and  The specific grounds upon which the request is made (UDC § 11-5A-7.A.3.) - see Section C, below. This letter also includes argument in support of Applicant’s appeal - see Section D, below. A. The Decision being Requested for Review. We request review of the Director’s Determination contained in your May 5, 2021, letter, a copy of which is attached to this letter as its EXHIBIT A. Appeal of Director’s Determination May 19, 2021 page 2   B. Name and Address of Person Requesting the Review, and Its Interest in the Matter. The Applicant, Blood, LLC, is the person requesting City Council’s review. The Applicant’s address is: Blood, LLC With a copy to: Attn: David Blood Joshua J. Leonard 629 E. Lake Creek Street Clark Wardle LLP Meridian, Idaho 83642 P.O. Box 639 Boise, Idaho 83701 The Applicant’s interest in the matter is that the Applicant owns the real property that is the subject of the May 5, 2021, Director’s Determination and this request for City Council review of that Director’s Determination (“Property”), which is:  Addressed as 2560 S. Meridian Road;  Identified by the Ada County Assessor as tax parcel no. R9071450022;  Legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Volkman Subdivision, at Book 53, Page 4652, of the Book of Plats of Ada County, Idaho, recorded on March 26, 1983, as Instrument No. 8515934, excepting therefrom the westernmost 35’ of such Lot 1;  1.06 acres; and  Zoned L-O by the City of Meridian. The Property is depicted in yellow in the following aerial image: Appeal of Director’s Determination May 19, 2021 page 3   C. Specific Grounds upon which the Request is Made. The primary specific grounds for our request for City Council review of the May 5, 2021, Director’s Determination is that the Property is entitled to reduced interior side setbacks, pursuant to the plain and unambiguous language of UDC § 11-2B-3.A., Table 11-2B-3, Note 2, because the plan for the Property includes reuse of an existing residential structure. The UDC’s Table 11-2B-3 prescribes dimensional standards for Meridian’s commercial zoning district, including the L-O zoning district in which the Property is locating. The interior side setback standard is highlighted in the following image of Table 11-2B-3: Pursuant to Table 11-2B-3, the interior side setback (measured in feet) applicable to the Property is “10/5.” The red arrow in the above image of Table 11-2B-3 identify Note 2, which reads: Minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure. As mentioned above and depicted below, the plan for the Property includes the reuse of the existing residential structure: Appeal of Director’s Determination May 19, 2021 page 4   Based on reuse of the existing residential structure on the Property, the Applicant is entitled to a reduction of the interior side set back from 10’ to 5’, pursuant to UDC Table 11-2B-3. Be declining to apply the reduced 5’ interior side setback authorized in UDC Table 11-2B-3, the Director’s Determination was in error. D. Arguments in Favor of Overturning Determination of Director. The Director’s Determination, which was contained in the letter dated May 5, 2021, was based on staff’s interpretation of the UDC. The Director’s Determination relied upon the intent underlying adoption of the subject ordinance. The Director’s Determination provided, in pertinent part: …the 5’ setback allowance in UDC 11-2B-3 is to address the existing homes along arterials that may convert to office uses. As an example, to explain the intent, staff noted most of the residential structures in this area were constructed with a 5-foot setback, and if rezoned from residential to office, requiring a 10’ setback would create a non-conforming structure if this exception in the UDC did not exist. May 5, 2021 letter from Meridian Planning Division Manager Caleb Hood. Appeal of Director’s Determination May 19, 2021 page 5   The intent underlying adoption of the ordinance that included UDC Table 11-2B-3 provided the only basis for the Director’s Determination, which denied the Applicant’s request to apply the shorter 5’ internal side setback. The Director’s Determination erred by looking outside of the UDC for justification to uphold Planning staff’s interpretation and application of UDC Table 11-2B-3 to require a 10’ internal side setback for the Property. The Idaho Supreme Court has a long line of decisions establishing principles and standards to be used in interpreting statutes, which also apply when interpreting municipal ordinances. Kootenai County v. Harriman-Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 16-17, 293 P.3d 637, 640-41 (2013), quoting Friends of Farm to Mkt. v. Valley County, 137 Idaho 192, 197, 46 P.3d 9, 14, in turn quoting Cunningham v. City of Twin Falls, 125 Idaho 776, 779, 874 P.2d 587, 590 (Ct.App. 1994); see also Albee v. Judy, 136 Idaho 226, 230, 31 P.3d 248, 252 (2001). The first principle of statutory interpretation is that the objective is to ascertain the intent of the legislative body that adopted the act. Id.; citing Payette River Property Owners Ass’n v. Board of County Com’rs of Valley County, 132 Idaho 551, 557, 976 P.2d 477, 483 (1999), in turn citing Ada County Assessor v. Taylor, 124 Idaho 550, at 428 [sic], 861 P.2d 1215, at 101 [sic]. Quoting the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in the Albee case: However, analysis of the legislative intent begins with the literal language of the enactment. Id. (citing Matter of Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho 819, 823, 828 P.2d 848, 852 (1992)). If the language is clear and unambiguous, the Court need merely apply the statute without engaging in any statutory construction. Thomas v. Worthington, 132 Idaho 825, 829, 979 P.2d 1183, 1187 (1999) (citing State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc., 130 Idaho 727, 732, 947 P.2d 400, 405 (1997). This language should be given its plain, usual and ordinary meaning. Matter of Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho at 823, 828 P.2d at 852. Albee, 136 Idaho at 231, 31 P.3d 248 at 253, citations in original, emphasis added; see also Friends to Farm to Mkt., 154 Idaho at 197, 46 P.3d at 14 (“[a]nalysis of a statute or ordinance begins with the literal language of the enactment”), citing Lawless v. Davis, 98 Idaho 175, 560 P.2d 497 (1997). It is only necessary to resort to extrinsic sources to determine legislative intent if the language of UDC Table 11-2B-3 is ambiguous. As the Idaho Court of Appeals held in the case of Boswell v. Steele: It is well established that where statutory language is unambiguous, legislative history and other extrinsic evidence should not be consulted for the purpose of altering the clearly expressed intent of the legislature. Boswell v. Steele, 158 Idaho 554, 563, 348 P.3d 497, 506 (2015), citing Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 893, 265 P.3d 502, 506 (2011). Appeal of Director’s Determination May 19, 2021 page 6   UDC Table 11-2B-3 is unambiguous. The decision conveyed in the Director’s Determination was only possible because the required first step (analyzing the “literal language of the enactment”) was skipped. Instead, the Director’s Determination performed step two, which was only to be performed if the language of UDC Table 11-2B-3 was ambiguous. UDC Table 11-2B-3 is not ambiguous. UDC Table 11-2B-3 includes 2 distances for internal side setbacks:  10’, which is the typical internal side setback distance, and  5’, which “is only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure” (UDC Table 11-2B- 3, Note 2). The Property includes an “existing residential structure” that is being reused; accordingly, the Property is entitled to application of the smaller 5’ interior side setback distance. If the City Council, in adopting UDC Table 11-2B-3, had intended application of the smaller interior side setback to be limited only to certain buildings, it could have adopted different language for UDC Table 11-2B-3, Note 2: 2 Minimum setback is applicable only to an existing residential structure and is not applicable to any new structures that are proposed for construction on the same property. The City Council that adopted UDC Table 11-2B-3 did not adopt that language, however; as it currently reads the smaller 5’ interior side setback applies broadly to parcels on which an existing residential structure is being reused: 2 Minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure. UDC Table 11-2B-3, Note 2. This provision of the UDC is not ambiguous. City Planning staff went beyond the literal language of the ordinance, and the Director’s Determination affirmed Planning staff’s incorrect interpretation and application of the ordinance’s literal language, stating: The setback reduction has been interpreted correctly and does not extend to all new structures that are proposed for construction on the same property. May 5, 2021, letter from Planning Director Caleb Hood, emphasis in original. Again, though, that is not what UDC Table 11-2B-3, Note 2 says. The Director’s Determination’s interpretation adds an exception to the plain language of UDC Table 11-2B-3, Note 2 for “new structures that are proposed for construction on the same property.” Appeal of Director’s Determination May 19, 2021 page 7   Again quoting the Idaho Supreme Court’s Boswell case: It is well established that where statutory language is unambiguous, legislative history and other extrinsic evidence should not be consulted for the purpose of altering the clearly expressed intent of the legislature. Boswell, 158 Idaho at 563, 348 P.3d at 506, citing Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 893, 265 P.3d 502, 506 (2011). We respectfully request that the City Council reject the incorrect decision reached by Meridian Planning staff, which was upheld by the Director’s Determination. The plain, unambiguous language of UDC Table 11-2B-3, Note 2 entitles the Applicant to apply the smaller 5’ interior side setback to the Property. We reserve all other arguments, and we request a de novo hearing before the City Council, pursuant to UDC §§ 11-5A-7 and 11-5A-6. Sincerely, Joshua J. Leonard Attorney for Applicant, Blood, LLC Enclosure(s).