Loading...
Albertson's VAR C~Op~( a BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION OF_ALBERTSON'S INC. FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410 A - MINIMUM YARD SETBACK FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled variance request having come on for consideration on March 7, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall., 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant's representative, Gordon Anderson, appearing 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 March 7, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 7, 1995, hearing; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. 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 his requirement has been met. 3. That the property is zoned Neignbornooa tsusiness District, C-N, which is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, Section FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 11-2-408 B 8. as follows: (C-N) Neighborhood Business District - The, purpose of the (C-N) District is to permit the establishment of small scale convenience business uses which are intended to meet the daily needs of the residents of an immediate neighborhood (as defined by the policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan); to encourage clustering and strategic siting of such businesses to provide service to the neighborhood and avoid intrusion of such uses. into the adjoining residential districts. All such districts shall give direct access to transportation arterials or collectors, be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute all or any part of a strip development concept. 4. That Ordinance 11-2-410 ZONING SCHEDULE OF BULK AND COVERAGE CONTROLS, A, for the C-N District, requires that there be a ten (10) foot side yard setback. 5. That the Applicant, Albertson's Inc., has requested that they be granted a variance from the above side yard setback requirement to have a 0.00 foot side yard setback only on the proposed lot lines common to lots 1 and 2 of the proposed two lot subdivision and it was stated that it was Applicant's intent to leave the side yard setback adjacent to residential property at the designated ten feet. 6. The Applicant further stated in the Application that the proposed use would be a neighborhood shopping center including an Albertsons grocery store and a 6,000 square foot retail shop space adjacent to an west of the proposed Albertsons store; that the irregular shape of the subject property makes it difficult to place a retail shop building in an area that will not disrupt parking lot traffic flows and handicap access to the proposed store facilities; also that this property is bounded to the south by Nampa-Meridian FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 Irrigations District's Eight Mile Lateral which has a 30.00 foot wide easement lying northerly of the property line, which makes this parcel very restrictive and difficult to develop; that if the minimum requirements of this Ordinance were applied to this property, it could create a loss of the shops lot entirely; that the retail shops lot, is proposed in part to offset some of the financial hardships associated with development costs of this site; that other sits in the same district do not have the easement and parcel shape restriction to contend with, as does this site; that because of these conditions and restrictive shape of this parcel, the Applicant will not be given special privileges, but will be able to develop this site with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in mind, which is to meet the needs of the residents of the immediate neighborhood and to avoid intrusions into the adjoining residential districts; that the buildings shown on the site plan will create a better buffer from the residential district to the west, thus requiring zero lot line variance approval; that granting this variance on the proposed lot line would allow Albertsons to sell the adjacent parcel and help recover a portion of the land or development costs for this site; and that Albertsons would prefer the retail shops building and lot be owned outright, because they are not structured to manage real property. 7. That the drawing submitted with Application shows the 0- lot line to be the entire length between Lot 1 and lot 2 of the subdivision plat; that at the public hearing the Applicant's representative stated the 0-lot line need not encompass the entire FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 • length of the lot line, but did request that it go from the building to the south lot line. 8. That the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the Central District Health Department submitted comments, which are incorporated herein by this reference; that the Fire Department's comments was that the variance was not a problem if a four hour fire wall was constructed (between the buildings). 9. That zero lot line defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11- 2-403 B, as follows: Zero Lot Line - A building design which allows for a dwelling to be built to the side lot line and which may include an easement to a neighboring lot for the purpose of upkeep and maintenance of each dwelling. Zero lot line developments can be either dwelling units detached or attached. 10. That zero lot lines are discussed in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, where it is stated in 11-9-405 F, LOTS, in part as follows: "Zero-Lot-Line Building Lots - a. Yard Setbacks: In no case shall a zero lot line be allowed adjacent to a property line which is not part of the development application. A minimum distance of ten feet (10') shall be maintained between buildings or potential buildings on separate lots. b. Easements: A perpetual six-foot (6') wide maintenance/drainage easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the zero-lot-line property line which shall be kept clear of structures with the exception of fences, patios and slabs at grade. Roof overhangs and below grade foundation footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of twelve inches (12"), but shall be so designed that runoff from the dwelling place on the lot line is limited to the easement area. The FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 • easement shall be shown on the development plan/plat and incorporated into each deed transferring the title to the property." 11. Katie Brown testified stating that her concerns were the noise and light impacts on her property; she also stated that she wanted to know who she should contact about the impacts on her property. 12. That the entire property in question is described in the variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 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 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 Subdivision and Development Ordinance 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 • • the City and the State. 5. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows: "11-9-612 A. 2., FINDINGS: No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council 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 be clearly impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as to the specific provision or requirement involved; b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the subdivider because of unusual topography, the nature of condition of adjacent development, other physical conditions or other conditions that make strict compliance with this Ordinance unreasonable under the circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements of this Ordinance will result in inhibiting t h e achievement or objectives of this Ordinance. c. That the granting of the specified variance will 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. 6. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant if the variance of the 0-lot line is granted; however, to require would mean that the Albertson store would be ten (10) feet from the retail shop, the spaces would, at least initially, be under the same ownership, and it is not uncommon in the City of Meridian and other areas in Treasure Valley to have commercial businesses abutting each other. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 • 7. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2., regarding the variance of 11-1-410 A, 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 ten (10) foot set back Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable. b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the ten (10) foot set back Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the Applicant. c. That the granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to the public. d. That the variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the ten (10) foot set back Ordinance which is included in the Zoning Ordinance. 8. That it is further concluded that 0-lot line development has been allowed in residential developments all along lot lines, but the lot lines have been in one plane and not varying in direction; that it does make sense to allow a zero lot line between commercial buildings that the owner, or owners, of the lots desire to have their buildings be adjacent and abutting; it is concluded that a zero lot line all along the boundary between two deferent lot lines when it is likely that no buildings would be constructed along the lot line makes no sense whatsoever. 9. That it is concluded that the variance of 11-2-410 A should be granted to the Applicant, but only along the lot line between lots 1 and 2 where the building to be constructed will abut. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 ~~ APPROVAL OF FINDINGS 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 COUNCILMAN COUNCILMAN COUNCILMAN -MAYOR KING YERRINGTON VOTED MORROW VOTED CORRIE VOTED /~ TOLSMA VOTED-G~ 3FORD .(TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION That it is decided the Application for a variance from 11-2- 410 A, in the C-N District is granted to the Applicant, but only along the lot line between lots 1 and 2 where the building to be constructed will abut. APPROVED: y ~~ DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8