Loading...
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 That Applicant has withdrawn its request for a variance regarding the pressurized irrigation system. 4.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: