Loading...
Findingsi • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: June 17.1997 APPLICANT: A'a LLC ITEM NUMBER; 5 REQUEST• REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR REDUCTION OF FRONT 8 SIDE STREET SETBACK AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: COMMENTS "REVIEWED" (~t/`~ SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS ~c ;~ C ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ • ,, MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: July 1 1997 QQ APPLICANT: A'a LLC ITEM NUMBER; J'~ C~ REQUEST• FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: COMMENTS ~ /~ ~"Y All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. BEFORE TgE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION OF A'a LLC ~~~~~~ JUN 3 0 197 '~'Y ~F ~t~~A;~ FINDINGS~OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled variance request having come on for consideration on June 17, 1997, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Me~idian City 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 June 17, 1997, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the June 17, 1997, 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. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met. 3. That Ordinance 11-2-410 A, ZONING SCHEDULE OF BULK AND FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1 • • COVERAGE CONTROLS, requires that Limited Office structures be set back on the front yard lines 30 feet and 25 feet on the street side from the property boundary where the structure is to be built. Applicant's Application, specifically, all Application documents, and the entire record are hereby .incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 4. That the Applicant stated that is has requested that it be granted a variance from the above front and side yard set back requirements and be allowed to have a 20 foot setback in the front and side yard setback of 20 feet, when the Ordinance requires 30 feet for the front and 25 feet on the street side; the Applicant stated that because Eagle and Franklin Roads are being widened; and Eagle Road now has 70 feet to the centerline but it will have 113 feet to the centerline; Franklin Road now has 40 feet to the centerline, but it is proposed to have 70 feet to the centerline; with -the set back requirement and the amount of feet to the centerline of each road it will result in a very large open space between where a project can be and where the roadway is. They are asking for a reduction of five feet on the Eagle Road setback and 10 feet on the Franklin Road setback. The result of the centerlines, and the setbacks will be 1.6 acres of landscape between the building and the edge of the road on a site that is 3.6 acres, which does not count the landscaping that they will have at the rear portion of the project and they would like some relief from that landscaping burden and be able to use a little bit more of the site. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -Page 2 • • 5. The property in question is in the southwest corner of the intersection of Franklin Road and Eagle Road. 6. That the property is zoned L-O, Limited Office. 7. That the property does not currently have any structures located on it. 8. That the Applicant owns the property, has previously requested that it be annexed and zoned Limited Office, and has presented a development request to construct a building on the property pursuant to a conditional use. 10. That the Meridian Fire, Meridian Police, and Meridian Sewer Departments submitted comments and had no objection to the request. Comments were also received from the Central District Health Department and from the Settler's Irrigation District and they stated no objections. No comments were received, at the date of preparation of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the Ada County Highway District (ACRD). 11. That Trisha Griffiths, who resides in Montvue Subdivision, testified. Her comments were that some of the residents in her subdivision oppose this variance. They feel that if this variance is granted other developers around the area would also ask for a similar variance. She stated that they own a strip of land in front of their subdivision and whoever buys it they would want as similar variance. That the person that owned their land before desired to develop it but could not because of the setbacks. That St. Likes and Jackson's Texaco had to follow the regulations and she feels that A'a should also have to follow the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 • • regulations. 12. Shari Stiles, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator commented that the City has been requesting a 35 foot landscape setback pm entrance corridor roadways; that she believed that that was in the Findings for the annexation but their conditional use was approved showing 20 feet on Franklin and 35 feet on Eagle Road. I think in most cases I might not be inclined to approve of this variance and I would not want to approve of the variance if the building plans were changed or the landscaping plan were changed such that .the building was of a different construction. In this case I think it is a beautiful building that they are proposing and will be a real foal point and a great attraction at that intersection. The people that are concerned on the other side of Eagle Road have not given up the ultimate right- of-way that will be taken when and if that is ever made an urban interchange. There is a big dedication of right-of-way on both Eagle and Franklin Roads. I wish we had something that would explain a little better to the neighbors where the edge of pavement is. Maybe it could be explained where the existing edge of pavement is and where the building would be from that edge of pavement. 13. Roger Smith testified again and stated that he wanted to expand upon what Shari Stiles was alluding. That the building would be approximately 85 feet from the roadway. The current edge of pavement on Franklin Road right now would be approximately 75 feet from the edge of the road on the Eagle Road side. FINDINGS. OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 • lJ We kind of feel like this is an unusual circumstance in that the large amount of land that is being taken and encroaching into what the previous parcel was is creating a tremendous setback and this will actually result in over twice what the City's desired entrance corridor is. We fully intend to significantly landscape that are in accordance with the plan that we submitted on our conditional use and provide berming, buffering, all the things that we proposed in the previous plan. One thing that I would like to bring up is the plan to raise Eagle Road but several feet or correct Franklin Road by several feet and lower Eagle Road by approximately twelve feet. It is going to present a very significantly obstructed view for each corner to see-the other corner. I thing that what will go on, on our side of Eagle Road will probably have very little impact on what goes on at either of the other three corners. Furthermore, the changes in elevations which will occur then from one standpoint we feel that the further out building is away from the neighbors behind the building the better off they will be as far as buffering goes from the roadway. This reduction of setback provides a little bit of that for us. If it moves us back we will likely maintain the same size building. We will just end up making a slightly tighter site with more landscaping around it. The concept will be the same. The significant changes that will occur there we feel will mitigate and appearance or any encroachment that is perceived by our project. 14. That proper notice was given as required by law and all FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 ~J procedures before the City Council were given and followed. coNCi,vsioxs 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 Zoning Ordinance and upon the record submitted to he and tit things 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 the City and the State. 5. That the following provision of Section 11-2-419 A, of the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the Application: 11-2-419 A. The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement, of the provisions of this Ordinance FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 • would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for issuance of a variance. Variances shall be granted only where strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance application does not go to the Commission unless directed by the Council. 6. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows: 11-2-419 C. FINDINGS A variance shall not be granted unless (as a result of a public hearing) the Council makes a statement of supportive reasons based directly on the evidence presented to it which supports conclusions that the mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have been met by the applicant and unless all of tit following exist: 1. 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; 2. That .strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the- owner, subdivider or developer because of unusual topography, other physical conditions or other conditions which are not self-inflicted, or that these conditions will result in inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of this Ordinance; 3. 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; 4. That such variance will not have the effect of altering the interest and purpose of FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 • this Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 7. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant in that the Applicant would not have to re-plan its proposed building, redo the landscape plan, apply for another conditional use permit, or a modification thereof; however, the area is being updated and improved by the ACRD, the State of Idaho Transforation Department, and with regard to this Applicant, the development of the southwest quadrant of Franklin and Eagle Roads; also as stated by Shari Stiles, the conditional use permit was granted by the City and approved and it showed setbacks of 20 feet on Franklin Road and 35 feet on Eagle Road and ACHD had the right to make a statement as to the building, setbacks and what landscaping they desired due to the building and the improvements of both roads. However, they did not make comment at that time. It is further concluded that it is likely that there would be, and may always be, objections due to any change in a roadway that people have grown accustomed to and has an impact on their property or the way that they desire their property and the surrounding property to be developed; .this is not to say that such objections are meaningless and should not listened to, and in some cases treated as controlling, but they must be evaluated along with all the evidence and circumstances involved in the Application being considered.' 8. That regarding Section 11-2-419 C it is specifically FINDINGS. OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 ~J concluded as follows: a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of the set back Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable since the Applicant's conditional use was approved with the setbacks, or less, now desired in this variance; it is also noted that the ACRD did not comment on those setbacks and has made no comment in this Application for a variance. It is also concluded that the setbacks pursuant to the Ordinance in relationship to how Eagle and Franklin Roads are designed to be constructed would be a hardship on the Applicant not under its control in any fashion. b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the set back Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the applicant as a result of factors not self- inflicted and would result in extraordinary hardship on the Applicant. c. That the granting of the specified 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 interests and purposes of the set back Ordinance or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That it is concluded the Application should be granted. FINDINGS. OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9 C~ 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 MORROW COUNCILMAN BENTLEY COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) APPROVED: DECISION VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED DISAPPROVED• It is hereby decided that the variance of the set-back ordinance is hereby granted and Applicant shall meet a twenty (20) foot front setback and a twenty (20) foot street side setback. -_ FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10