Glenco, Inc.
~ _~.o
AMBROSE.
FITZGERALD
&. CROOKSTON
Atlornoys and
Couneolors
P.O. Bo~ 427
Marldllln, Idaho
83642
ralophona BB6-<<B1
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
APPLICATION OF GLENCO, INC.
FOR A VARIANCES FROM THE PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ORDINANCE,
FROM THE STREET LIGHT ORDINANCE, AND
CUL-DE-SAC STREET ORDINANCE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled variance request having come on for
consideration on April 2, 1991, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m.
on said date, at the Meridi an Ci ty Hall, 33 East Idaho Street,
Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and taken oral
and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was
published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing
for April 2, 1991, the first publication of which was fifteen (15)
days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered
at the April 2, 1991, hearing; that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the 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. 1.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the
City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
& CROOKSTO N
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.o. Bo~ 427
Meridian, Idaho
83642
.olephone 888.4461
3. That Applicant has withdrawn its request for a variance
regarding the pressurized irrigation system.
4. That Ordinance 11-9-606 8 13, Street Lighting, requires
that street lights be installed as a public improvement by every
developer of a subdivision.
5. That the Appl icant has requested that it be granted a
variance from the above street lighting requirement but has agreed
to place street lights at every intersection in the Meridian
Greens Subdivision #2.
6. That Ordinance 11-9-605 B 6, Streets, requires that no
street which ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead-end shall be longer
than 450 feet.
7. That the Applicant has requested that it be granted a
variance from the above street requirement and be allowed a 520
foot cul-de-sac.
8. The property in question is generally located South of
Overland and East of Meridian Greens No.1 Subdivision, Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho.
9. That the property is zoned R-4 Residential.
10. That the covenants and restrictions for the subdivision
will require that each home have a yard light installed such that
the front yard area between the house and the front property line
is illuminated.
The light is to be designed to automatically
switch on at sunset and off at sunrise.
11. That Section 11-9-606 B. 13. b., provides that in the
event the street lighting ordinance of 11-9-606 B. 13. b., is
waived that the developer and the lot owners shall be responsible
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALO
& CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. eo~ 427
MerIdian, Idaho
ll3B42
relophono 88ll-4.wl
for insuring that there is a yard light installed in the front
yard of each house, controlled by a photo electric cell, and the
light shall be wired directly to the residence's electrical
breaker panel and comply with the National Electrical Code.
12. That Meridian Greens Subdivision #1 has yard lights for
lighting purposes.
13. That the Applicant has agreed to place a fire hydrant
in the proposed cul-de-sac such that fire hoses would not have to
be run for distances greater than 300 feet in the cul-de-sac.
14. That the property is an R-4 subdivision.
15. That there was testimony that due to the canal located
near the subdivision that development would be impractical if a
cul-de-sac of the length desired were not allowed.
16. That there were no public comments submitted in
opposition to the variances at the public hearing.
CONCLUSIONS
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
\'J i t h i n 3 0 0 fee t 0 f the e x t ern a 1 b 0 u n d a r i e s 0 f the A p P 1 i can tis
property.
2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant
to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances.
3. That the City Council has judged this application by the
guidel ines, standards, criteria, and pol icies contained in the
Zoning Ordinance and upon the record submitted to it and the
things upon which it may take judicial notice.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
& CROOKSTON
AUornays and
Counselors
P.O. Box 427
MeridIan, Idaho
63642
'olephone 888044el
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 ~"ithin
the City and the State.
5. That the follo\'Jing provisions of Section 11-9-612,
Variances, of the Development Ordinance is noted which is
pertinent to the Application:
11-9-612 A. 1. PURPOSE
The Council, as a result of unique
circumstances (such as topographic
- physical limitations or a planned
unit development), may grant
variances from the provisions of
this Ordinance on a finding that
undue hardship results from the
strict compliance with specific
provisions or requirements of the
Ordinance or that appl ication of
such provision or requirement is
impracticable.
6. That the specific requirements regarding a variance
that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are a
follo~"s:
11-9-612 A. 2, FINDINGS
No variance shall be favorably
acted upon by the Counci 1 unless
there is a finding, as a result of
a public hearing, that all of the
following exist:
a. That there are such special
circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the
strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance 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
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
& CROOKSTON
Allorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Bo~ 427
Morldlan, Idaho
83642
Telephone 1lllIl4461
involved;
b. That the strict compl i ance with
the requirements of this Ordinance
would result in extraordinary
hardship to the subdivider because
of unusual topography, other
physical conditions or other such
conditions which are not self-
infl icted, or that these conditions
would result in inhibiting the
achievement of the objectives of
this Ordinance;
c. That the granting of the
specified variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other property in
the area in which the property is
situated;
d. That such variance will not
violate the provisions of the Idaho
Code; and
e. That such variance will not
have the effect of nullifying the
interest and purpose of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Development Plan.
7. That there does appear to be a benefit of profit,
economic gain or convenience to the Applicant in that street
1 ights would be more costly, however, the 1 ighting ordinance
provides for a waiver of that ordinance in the R-4 zone.
8. That it is concluded that due to safety factors, the
waiver and variance of the street light ordinance should not be
granted at roadway intersections at Meridian Greens Subdivision
No.2 and that street lights shall be placed at all those
intersections within the subdivision.
9.
That regarding Section 11-9-612 A.2. regarding Street
Lights, it is specifically concluded as follows:
a .
That
are
special
there
circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the
strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance would
clearly be unreasonable in that
waivers are allowed under the
street light ordinance in R-4
subdivision and the first portion
of the subdivision has yard lights.
b. That strict compliance with the
requirements of this Ordinance
would result in hardship to the
owner, subdivider or developer as
a result of factors not self-
inflicted.
c. That the granting of the spec-
ified 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
interest and purpose of this
Ordinance and the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
10. That it is concluded the Application should be granted
as it pertains to street 1 ights except street 1 ights shall be
required at intersections, and provided that the lights are yard
lights and not house lights.
11. That with regard to the cul-de-sac and the section 11-
9-612 A.2. requirements it is specifically concluded as follows:
Allorneys end
Counselors
a. That there are special
circumstances or conditions
affecting the property that the
strict application of the
provisions of this Ordinance would
clearly be unreasonable in that the
canal in the area makes development
without the length of the cul-de-
sac impractical.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
I'. CROOKSTON
P.O. Bo~ 427
Meridian, Idaho
83642
relephOno 8884461
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
&. CROOKSTON
Allllrnays and
Cllunselms
P.O. Bllx 427
Marldlan, Idaho
83t142
rolepMne 81184461
b. That strict compliance with the
requirements of this Ordinance
would result in hardship to the
owner, subdivider or developer as
a result of factors not self-
inflicted.
Co That the granting of the spec-
ified variance would not be
detrimental to the public's welfare
or injurious to other property in
the area in which the property is
situated, specifically with the
added fire hydrant in the cul-de-
sac.
d. That such variance would not
have the effect of altering the
interest and purpose of this
Ordinance and the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
12. That it is concluded the Application should be granted
as it pertains to cul-de-sacs as long as the fire hydrant is
placed such that fire hoses do not have to run more than 300 feet
within the cul-de-sac.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN YERRINGTON
COUNCILMAN GIESLER
COUNCILMAN MYERS
COUNCILMAN TOLSMA
MAYOR KINGSFORD (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED~",.;J]~
::::: ~:~
VOTED~~
VOTED
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED: