FindingsCITY OF MERIDIAN ~~E IDIAN~-
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND I D A H O
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3H-4C.3, which Requires a 10-Foot
Wide Multi-Use Pathway to be Constructed along SH 55/Eagle Road, Located at 3131 &
3163 E. Lanark Street, by Ted Sigmont.
Case No(s). VAR-10-003
For the City Council Hearing Date of: December 28, 2010 (Findings on January 11, 2011)
A. Findings of Fact
Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 28, 2010,
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 28, 2010,
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of
December 28, 2010, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of December 28, 2010, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code
codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-SA.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). VAR-10-003
-1-
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon
the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is in accord with the findings in the attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of December 28, 2010, incorporated by reference.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and
based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for a variance as recommended by staff is hereby approved in
accord with the findings in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December
28, 2010, attached as Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Final Action
1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person
being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by
the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date
of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,
Idaho Code.
E. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of December 28, 2010
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). VAR-10-003
-2-
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the I ~ day of
r Avg r~x wl , 2011.
COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA
COUNCIL MEMBER BRAD HOAGLUN
COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE
COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD
(TIE BREAKER)
VOTED~((~ ,
VOTED a ~ e
VOTED a~Sc,Y,~
VOTED A.~e
VOTED '
Attest:
a-
~V I 1 ~ `
Jay ee 1 Ci y Clerkly'
"~~ _
~'
Copy served upon Applicant, The~~~~~g Department, Public Works Department and City
Attorney.
f ~ ~~~~ ,
By: ~~~~l~V'~,i! ~J~. ;.~f Dated: ~ _ ~ ~ ' ~ I
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). VAR-10-003
-3-
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: December 28, 2010 ~'"~ a ~T
TO: Mayor and City Council E IllIl~1 ~!
FROM: Sonya Waters, Associate City Planner I D A H O
(208)884-5533
SUBJECT: VAR-10-003 -Lanark Property
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The Applicant, Ted Sigmont, 3131 Lanark LLC & 3163 Lanark LLC, requests a variance to Unified
Development Code (UDC) 11-3H-4C.3 which requires a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway to be
constructed along SH 55/Eagle Road. (See Section VIII for more information)
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance in accord with the findings in Exhibit B.
However, instead of the applicant's proposal to relocate the pathway to the toe of the slope, staff
recommends the requirement for the pathway be waived.
Note: On December 7, 2010, the applicant requested a waiver of the fees for the subject application
from City Council. Without reviewing the development application in full, the Council was hesitant to
waive the fees. Therefore, Council denied the request for a fee waiver and proposed they consider a
refund when the application is heard.
The Meridian Citv Council heard this item on December 28 2010 At the public hearing,~he
Council approved the subject VAR request.
~. Summary of City Council Public Hearin:
1. In favor: Patrick McKeePan
11. In opposition: None
jji. Commenting: None
jy, Written testimony: Patrick McKeegan (in agreement with staff reportl
y, Staff presenting annlicatinn: onva Wafters
y~ ether staff cnmmPntin~ on application: None
]t, ]~gy Issues of Discussion by Council:
~ None
~ KAY Counc 1 ChanPec to Staff/Commission Recommendation
~. None _-
III. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing
Approval
After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number VAR-
10-003, as presented in Staff Report for the hearing date of December 28, 2010.
Denial
After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number VAR-10-
003, as presented during the hearing on December 28, 2010. (You should state why you are denying
the request.)
Lanark Property VAR-10-003
Page 1
EXHIBIT A
Continuance
I move to continue File Number VAR-10-003 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The subject property is located at 3131 & 3163 E. Lanark Street on the southwest corner of E.
Lanark Street & N. Eagle Road, in the southeast '/ of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
Parcel #51108417320
B. Owner:
Ted Sigmont, 3131 Lanark, LLC and 3163 Lanark LLC
4696 Overland Road, Ste. 152
Boise, ID 83705
C. Applicant:
Same as owner
D. Representative:
Patrick McKeegan, PMA, Inc.
280 N. Latah Street, Ste. 100
Boise, ID 83706
E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is a request for a variance. Per Meridian City Code, a public hearing is
required before the City Council on this matter.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: December 6, and 20, 2010
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: December 6, 2010
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 17, 2010
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s): There are two existing buildings on the subject property that contain
commercial uses.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: Vacant land, zoned C-G
2. East: R.C. Willey's (retail store), zoned C-G
3. South: Vacant land, zoned I-L
4. West: Industrial uses, zoned I-L
C. History of Previous Actions:
- This property was rezoned (RZ-08-006) from I-L to C-G in 2008. A development agreement
was required with the rezone of the property, recorded as Instrument No. 110064692.
Lanark Property VAR-10-003
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: Not applicable.
b. Location of water: Not applicable.
c. Issues or concerns: No concerns
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: NA
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property.
VII. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING
No comments were received by the Planning Department from other City departments for the subject
application. Please see the public record for any written comments that may have been submitted by
other agencies.
VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Variance (VAR): A variance to UDC 11-3H-4C.3 is requested, which requires a 10-foot wide
detached multi-use pathway to be constructed along SH 55/Eagle Road.
Eagle Road rises from 4 feet to 20 feet +/- above the parking level on the subject property. A
significant slope exists between the parking area and the top of the grade where the pathway is
required adjacent to SH 55/Eagle Road. Because there is not adequate area for a10-foot wide
pathway to be constructed between the edge of the road and the top of the slope, the area would
need to be backfilled significantly at a considerable cost to the applicant.
The applicant estimates the cost of the pathway improvements for their 275 feet of frontage,
including engineering, demolition, fill, adjustment of utility boxes, and slope stabilization, will be
a minimum of $34,000.00 based on a bid they received for the work included in the subject
application. For this reason, the applicant proposes to construct the 10-foot wide pathway at the
toe of the slope rather than adjacent to the street.
The applicant asserts that locating the pathway at the toe of the slope would enhance public safety
and welfare by allowing for separation between the busy traffic on Eagle Road and the required
pathway, as well as providing more direct pedestrian access to the businesses located at the
bottom of the slope. The applicant further requests approval to defer construction of the pathway
at the toe of the slope, without submittal of surety, for five years from the date of decision on this
application to allow time to gain capital for the improvements.
Background: The applicant previously proposed some alternative pathway configurations to staff
at the toe of the slope. Because of the significant climb in grade from the property to the south
and the SH 55/Franklin intersection and ADA requirements, staff is of the opinion that
continuation of the pathway at the toe of the slope to the south is not feasible. Therefore, staff did
not support the applicant's proposals. The applicant also proposed submitting a bond or
contributing to a trust fund with the City or ITD for their share of future public right-of--way
improvements; however, there is no such method available at this time.
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has submitted comments on this application,
included in Exhibit A.3. In summary, ITD does not feel it's prudent to locate the pathway at the
toe of the slope because of the degree of the grade necessary to get the path back up to the
Lanark Property VAR-10-003
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Franklin/SH 55 intersection. Additionally, because of the potential for widening Eagle Road, ITD
is of the opinion it may not be practical to construct a permanent pathway at this time. A
temporary pathway could be constructed at the toe of the slope but it wouldn't go anywhere and
would ultimately need to be relocated to the top of the slope if/when Eagle Road is improved
and/or widened.
The applicant states that granting the variance to locate the pathway at the toe of the slope would
substantially decrease the cost of the pathway improvements as well as provide a safer route for
pedestrians. Additionally, granting the request for a deferral of the improvements would allow
some time to lease the empty spaces in the building to provide capital for the improvements over
time.
Staff is of the opinion locating the pathway right next to traffic on SH 55/Eagle Road without a
separation is not in the best interest of public safety or welfare. Nor does staff feel it's prudent to
require the applicant to spend an exorbitant amount of money on improvements to place the
pathway at the top of the slope when it could potentially be torn out with widening of SH 55
and/or the SH 55/Franklin intersection.
As stated above, Staff is also of the opinion it would not be practical to require the applicant to
construct a temporary pathway at the toe of the slope that would ultimately need to be relocated;
it wouldn't serve a purpose as there are currently no adjacent pathways to connect to. For these
reasons, Staff recommends approval of the subject variance request; however, staff recommends a
pathway not be required to be constructed by the applicant. The Idaho Transportation Department
has submitted comments on this application stating that if SH 55/Eagle is widened or the
intersection is improved in the future through Federal Aid funds, a pathway would be constructed
by IT'D as part of these improvements.
Note: On December 7, 2010, the applicant requested a waiver of the fees for the subject
application from City Council. Without reviewing the development application in full, the Council
was hesitant to waive the fees. Therefore, Council denied the request for a fee waiver and
proposed they consider a refund when the application is heard.
In accord with UDC 11-SB-4E, in order to grant a variance, the Council has to make three
findings, as follows: 1) The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not
otherwise allowed in the district; 2) The variance relieves an undue hardship because of
characteristics of the site; and 3) The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare. Please see Exhibit B for Staff's response to these findings.
IX. EXHIBITS
A. Maps/Other
1. Vicinity Map & Aerial Map
2. Site Plan
3. Comments from the Idaho Transportation Department
B. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code
Lanark Property VAR-10-003
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.1 -Vicinity Map & Aerial Map
Lanark Property VAR-10-003
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A.2 -Site Plan
~m
~ raxewwruw~wewnra.
a rw aaYiwawxe+a~naaa.
a rrnarw~+n~sxnwwe.ewwwrnwxr
a ww...n~~irxriunrwn.n.ar~wiw~
x r ~wwrw~.nr~a ~o,ieiarxe
~ ~d4A
aaanar ~'
!M
~ .~~~
r~
nnr
anw nxawaaaw
~.~ .~..~
II~CA~ $Cff~~
~r arwo~ ii swan.
aaw
wrw
~ ~ nuaww rrx r.r
M uauw ~
1N110nn10a~l/a111Yp
T61L YxaM
w ~j1/9Y g~panY
1atal~aan4' aMl 1-xY
acne ~ M nanvn !tr
.n ® taw :xa
~
wnaa
~
aa+L x1'xY
11aY~la
ar
O atarn~
a~'wrltra`"r a"nawi
al/ar
aaw rxr
Lanark Property VAR-10-003
~ ~~
Page 6
add Q
EXHIBIT A
3. Comments from the Idaho Transportation Department
Machelle Hill
From: Larry Strough [Larry.Strough~itd.idaho.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:17 AM
To: Machelle Hill
Cc: Pam Golden
Subject: VAR 10-003 3131 &3183 E. Lanark Street
General Comments:
The Eagle Road Infrastructure design located the 10' pad/bike path adjacent to the curb, i.e. attached and at.the top
of the slope, because of the embankment fill in this location. It is not prudent, nor practycal to locate the path at the
toe of slope and somehow get it up to the roadway level at the corner at Franklin Rd., keeping in mind ADA
requirements for such paths. In this case, if the c8g is not constructed, it would essentially be a 10' wide shoulder
which we would have to maintain.
If the City of Meridian does in fact require the path, I think the path must be placed at the top of slope in this bcation
(south of Lanark to Franklin), i.e. not separated from the roadway. Also, the path would not be connected to any
other pad/bike facility in this case.
Given the potential for widening of Eagle Road, albeit In the future, it may not be prudent to have a permanent
pad/bike path constructed at this time. Allowing the path to be constructed on the property line, outside the toe of
slope, may ba the best option, recognizing that the path ultimately will have to be relocated to the top of the slope
if/when Eagle Road is improved end/or widened.
Comments on the Variance A~olication:
Page 2, 4°` Paragreph:
There is a reference to a "50' construction easement" which isn't true. I have no idea why they state that, but it
could be a reference from the original widening project. Construction easements are usually only project specie
and temporary.
Page 3, iw Paragraph:
Misstates that the Eagle Road Infrastructure plans shows a "5' attached sidewalk", which is not true. The plane
show a 10' attached sidewalk between Franklin Rd. and Lanark St. The sidewalk is shown as attached to the curb
& gutter because the design assumed that the sidewalk would have to be located at the top of the slope due to the
high embankment. It was also assumed that any additional fill would be completed within the existing r/w with a
variable slope and/or retaining walls used to contain slopes in some instances. The use of a 3:1 slope in this
location may not be possible nor prudent due to the impacts to rAv if widening is needed.
There is also a reference to a "recessed drainage retention structure" which I am not aware of it. Not sure what this
reference is about.
Page 3, 3r° Paragraph:
References the potential widening of Eagle Road in the future due to the Meridian Town Center project (CenterCal).
The latest proposal from CenterCal does include the addition of a 3'd southbound lane on Eagle Road. ICs a safe
assumption that a southbound right turn lane to Franklin Rd. would also be added although it would likely not extend
adjacent this property. Those Improvements if they do in fact happen, would impact the referenced property and
ACHD's property in the comer at Franklin Rd. I suspect that additional r/w would be needed and/or significant
vertical construction to contain the 011, i.e. retaining walls. If this developer is required to construct a combination
path at this time, it's likely any future widening of Eagle Rd. would impact it, i.e. have to relocate the path.
Page 3,5th Paragraph:
Reference to a "5' sidewalk° is incorrect. There was no intention of having a narrower sidewalk/path at this location.
See comments on 1•~ Paragraph.
Sonya Wafters
From: Pam Golden [Pam.Golden~itd.idaho.gov]
Sertt: Wednesday, December 22, 201011:23 AM
To: Sonya Wafters
Subject: Lanark
Sonya-
I talked with Wade about this area. ITD has no concerns if a variance Is granted to remove the condition on the developer
for the sidewalk/multi use path. If ITD gets future Federal-Aid funds to widen Eagle Road, ITD will provide the pedestrian
connectivity in that area.
Pam Golden, P.E.
ITD District 3 Development and Access Management Engineer
P.O. BoX 8028
Boise, ID 83707
(208) 334-8377 Office
(208) 334.8917 Fax
Lanark Property VAR-10-003
Page 1
EXHIBIT A
Exhibit B -Required Findings from the Unified Development Code
The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings listed in
Section 11-SB-4.E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a variance, the Council
shall make the following findings:
A. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the
district:
The City Council finds that granting a variance would not allow a right or special privilege that is not
otherwise allowed for properties that are adjacent to a state highway because of the topography that
exists on and adjacent to this property. Due to the significant slope that exists between the subject
property and the property to the south, and SH 55/Eagle Road and the SH 55/Franklin intersection that
makes compliance with the requirement for amulti-use pathway on this site unfeasible. This is not
necessarily the case for other properties in the district. See Section VIII, Analysis, for more information.
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
The City Council finds granting the variance would relieve an undue hardship based on the topography
of the site. There is a substantial difference in elevation between the subject property and Eagle Road
and the improvements necessary to retrofit a pathway in this area would be significant.
C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The City Council finds granting the variance to waive the requirement for a pathway to be provided
along the frontage of this property would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare
and would actually increase public safety by not requiring a pathway in this area due to the proximity
of traffic on Eagle Road.
Lanark Property VAR-10-003
Page 2