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