Staff ReportSTAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: May 24, 2011
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner
(208)884-5533
SUBJECT: VAR-11-001 -Kingsbridge
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
E IDII~t
IDAHO
The Applicant, Boise Hunter Homes, requests a blanket variance (VAR) to deviate from the
dimensional standards of the R-2 zone which requires a 7.5-foot per story interior side setback. The
applicant is seeking a variance to allow two story homes with a 7.5 foot interior side setback instead
of the required 7.5 per story interior side setback. The request is for all seventy-two (72) lots within
the subdivision. (See Section VIII for more information)
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the proposed variance in accord with the findings in Exhibit B.
III. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing
Denial
After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number VAR-11-
001, as presented during the hearing on May 24, 2011. (You should state why you are denying the
request.)
Approval
After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number VAR-
11-001, as presented in Staff Report for the hearing date of May 24, 2011.
Continuance
I move to continue File Number VAR-11-001 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 on the east side of 5. Eagle Road midway between E. Victory
Road and E. Amity Road in the northwest '/ of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
B. Applicant/Owner(s):
Boise Hunter Homes
1025 S. Bridgeway Place
Eagle, ID 83616
C. Representative:
Scott Noriyuki, Northside Management, LLC, (208) 230-1202
D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information.
Kingsbridge VAR-11-001 - 1 -
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: May 2, and 16, 2011
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: Apri128, 2011
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 14, 2011
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s): The subject property is vacant, zoned R-2.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: The subject property is
surrounded on the north, east and south by larger county residential properties zoned RUT. The
property to the west includes lots platted with the first phase of the Kingsbridge Subdivision,
zoned R-2.
C. History of Previous Actions:
• In 2004, the first applications (AZ-04-023, PP-04-030 and CUP-04-032) for the Kingsbridge
project were denied by City Council. The basis for the denial, among others, was due to the
lack of transitional lots between the project and the large county parcels surrounding the
property. The applicant redesigned the plat and resubmitted to the City for approval.
In 2005, the property received annexation (AZ-OS-003), preliminary plat (PP-OS-004) and
Conditional Use Permit (CUP-OS-004) approval for a Planned Development (PD). The PD
allowed reduced lot frontages and extended block lengths. The plat consisted of 130
residential lots and 34 common lots. A development agreement (DA), recorded as instrument
#105092050, was required at the time annexation approval. As part of the DA approval, a
separate settlement agreement with the adjacent property owners was also required and tied to
the DA.
• The City Council approved the final plat (FP-OS-056) for the first phase on September 20,
2005. Phase 1 platted with 53 residential lots and 20 common lots on 38.4 acres.
• Phase 2 of the preliminary Plat (FP-06-006) was approved by City Council on March 14,
2006. That phase of the plat consisted of 50 residential lots and 13 common lots on 23.97
acres. In 2008, an 18-month administrative time extension was granted however, the plat did
not receive City Engineer's signature nor was a subsequent time extension processed. Thus,
the plat and the CUP have expired.
• In 2010, the City Council approved a new preliminary plat (PP-10-007). The plat consisted of
72 residential lots and 7 common lots on 38.31 acres.
VII. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING
Staff has received written comments from the Boise Project Board of Control which have been
addressed in both the preliminary plat and the proposed final plat.
VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS
VARIANCE: The applicant is seeking a variance to deviate from the dimensional standards of the
R-2 zoning district. Specifically, the variance request addresses the standard that requires a 7.5-foot
per story for the interior side setback for two story homes. The applicant wishes to have the
standard reduced to a 7.5 foot, total interior side setback for the future two-story homes planned for
Kingsbridge VAR-11-001 - 2 -
the subdivision.
The applicant's variance request covers all seventy-two (72) lots (see exhibit A.3 for Applicant's
narrative). It appears that the design of the homes, lot size and configuration were not considered in
the design of the recently approved preliminary plat. Staff is of the opinion that the variance is not
the appropriate process to accommodate the requested deviation from the setback requirements. As
discussed below, a variance is appropriate to provide relief where circumstances are beyond the
control of the applicant or would result in a deprivation of rights commonly enjoyed by other
property owners in the same zoning district. Further, variances are not intended to be granted on a
"blanket basis".
Per UDC 11-SB-4.E, in order to grant a Variance, the City Council must be able to meet the three
(3) findings. Staff has reviewed these findings and offers the following justification of why the
variance cannot be supported by the Planning Department:
1) The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in
the district. Staff is of the opinion that granting a variance for the reason requested by the
applicant would grant a right or special privilege to the applicant that is not otherwise
allowed in the district. A variance is meant to be considered on a case by case basis and
the subject request is for a blanket variance to deviate from the dimensional standards of
the R-2 zone. There are more appropriate means to address the setback regulations
through the design of the homes or eliminating lots to provide sufficient area to comply
with the unified development code (UDC). Additional methods would be to seek a
Planned Unit Develop (PUD) or a rezone (RZ) of the property. The PUD process would
allow the applicant to request reduced dimensional standards and if the property were
rezoned to an R-4 zone, the interior side setback would be a minimum of S feet. The
applicant was given options to pursue these avenues and chose to design and plat the
property in accord with the R-2 zone.
2) The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. The
property is vacant and has no site characteristics that cause an undue hardship. There
are no physical limitations (e.g. irregular lots, steep slopes, natural features) that
preclude compliance with the R-2 setbacks. It appears that sole reason for seeking the
variance is based upon building design. The Unified Development Code (UDC) allows
for a reduction in buildable lots without submitting a new preliminary plat. The applicant
could plat fewer and larger lots to create lots to accommodate multiple home designs.
3) The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff
finds that the applicant's request for the reduced side setback would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare given the fact that many of the other residential
zoning districts have less restrictive interior side setbacks than the R-2 zone.
In summary, the justification for the variance does not conform to all of the Findings;
therefore staff recommends denial of the application.
IX. EXHIBITS
A. Maps/Other
1. Vicinity Map
2. Approved Preliminary Plat
3. Applicant's Narrative
B. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code
Kingsbridge VAR-11-001 - 3 -
Exhibit A.1 -Vicinity Map
',..`
'°° a~~ ya
~ ~... W , ~, z ~ 4 a ~ ~ ~-~' y~j
_ ... H
9 -~
s~
Z " r A~ , ~ R
E DEERHILL DR E SALCOMBE DR ~
Y ~ ~,. ~.
a ~ E KINGSBRIDGE DR W
~, ~ ~ ,.
_N ~
~ ~ E PLYMPTON DR ~ `; ~
1}~~R
E ZAt~i'A DR ~ E ZALDIA ST ...E znLDip LN RLPI' E ZAI,I~tA~~G
in ~ ~+~ _,~,"
~ ~d .~
R-4 ~' ~ ~~ V ~ ~ ~. ;
~.
1TI
r
Ire.
~.~~~
i
Kingsbridge VAR-11-001 - 4 -
Exhibit A.2 -Approved Preliminary Plat
..
.:
I ~' ~, ~. JJ _, ~~
.c, >
J t t ~ --•
~~ P I ...,
oK "'-t----"~ "~ $~a i 1 -~
`#
_ _ ~ '` ,~
,. .,
n,~ . -„ ~ ~ ~ . c.
~,
..
~- ~ „~. ~ -
_ _ ~..~.~~ ~~.: .-. ~--~._~u~.n_~~_~~._~ ~ , ~ - , ~ $~~
,~~r ~~ ,..... .,,~. s .3 S` ,-.. I
,~ ~, «~.
- ,. - ~ r `~ as-..... ~~. ,v.-n
.'.'i~~
M
..
.~ .._ ...
_ _ :. es.rn --_ -- -. _ -_ __ p
B ~~~ ~~ a~
_ ~~
,M. \ °_' ., . ~° ., ,. i, -~-- i ~ Seri ... .w. ,s,,,ro.,p~ 3
J~v ~, ,~. ~ _, _, ~ „~ ~ ` m ~
. _ ~..~
~~~~__~
,~ ~ ~~~
_, ~ i^ _. _. , , _, a ~
.~
M a
i .. k,m ,... ~ -- --~-' ~. - ---~-'- ~ ---- ~.~5"~ ti
._ .Y.._
..v. I/ ~ \ `r ~f__- ~`~-xt ~M N:~ `• __- - peypppr:LL ~~.enmw ,:~Y..
\ ,. v .t. .. %aperly Ormr
of
es m~
m
'a
Ms-
~s :.um ~ ~~ ,i ~ E~Pber.ladeceVe Ardiisti
f x .., ~ ...r .;:,r zi ..r ~v ;Yr
<mnwnv
- ---- r $_L- ~ _ _ _ - _„~~_ _ Lot Dimensions ° ~P1.00
- -~..- -
Kingsbridge VAR-11-001 - 5 -
Exhibit A.2 -Applicant's Narrative
NORTHvIDE
ivIAIVA~GEMENT
AprII 11, ?Ail
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: KfuagsbridgeSabdivisionSWeSetbwtdcVarianceRegaest-I.etba~afIntaat
Dear Mayor and Conned,
As represartative for Boise Han~r Homes, please accept this application for Kingahridge
Subdivision No. 2 & 3, located at E. I~ingsbrklge Dr, approrimately 1/3 mile East of Eagle Road
in Meridian, Idaho. TThk applicatkn inclades a rgnested Variance of the Silk Setback for'1~
reddesttial home Iob. The properll- contains 38.33 aces coned R 2. The propeeiy was
previously apprm+ed in Daoeamber of ZO10 for single familyy residential developme~ known as
Kingsbridge Snbdivfafion Phase 2 di 3. A Developmeazt Agreemart Modification applkation has
bear submitted cancurrentll- with Chia request.
We are naquest[ng a aide setback Variance specific to the 15' second story of homes as indicated
within the City of Meridian R: 2 Zing. We request to reduce this to 7.S' consistent with We
first floor aide setback indicated witirfm this Zoning d~tion. No other variances are
requested. ~ breakdown bellow.
Existing R-2 Setback Requirsmenb
Front I~#ving 1S'
Front Garage 2Q'
Rear 15'
Side i'~ Floor 7.5'
Side 2°d Floor 15'
Side Street ZO'
Requested Variance to Setbacks
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
7.5' Rgnested
No Change
Aa Owner, Developer and Builder of Phases II ~ III, Boise Hunter Homes de~rea to provide a
greater degree of product diversity to indude larger homes and architectural character that
otherwise could not be eonaaucted on several of We k+ts due to the second floor iS' she setback
regairranarta. This inabilfty will narrow Boise Hunter Home's capability to provide the beat
possible product that Buyers are demanding,
Kingsbridge VAR-11-001 - 6 -
Ki~abri~e 3ubdivisioa Phase II d~ III were previoua~ spprm+ed under the R-~ tuning
designations which no longer ea~isb. T6M aubstswtial change coupled with cammi~manb of
24,Q00 agnate foot bt requlraaenb sad gingko absry home construction on paunmete~r lob has
created s hardship. fisrther, the density is beksw R-2 msiimwmar and open apace acoeed~e
minimums.
Phase II dr III lob are orientated is such a way that the reduced second story lido setback
would sot affect or aiq- ad,~aomt Praperfies or homes. Thin request provides opttomum
design fiembfiity, r yards and finished product dh-etaity. This is consistent wiW the goals
and intent of the Compve Land Use Plsn and R 2 Zoning, therefore world not be
considered a "special priv~e" but rather the removal of a hardship. This variance would not
have a metal effect on the public heakh, safety, or welfare.
In conclusion, Khegabridge subdivision phases 2 d< 3 will be a quality addition to the Cfdy of
Meridf~us. Ib dose prazimity to the medical sad profid~ional uses nearby, in addition to the I-
S4 corridor, make it a perfect bcation for singlefamily development as originally approved.
Due to ib ade'e, the development should be attractive m fam~a, a etle~ees, working profeaeionals
and ems who wHl find its loca#ian to ganersl services without wing the confines of
the area desirable. We look forward to working with you and your staff sad would request
approval of this request.
sincerely,
tt Nariynld
Northside Management
Kingsbridge VAR-11-001 - 7 -
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:
Staff finds that granting a variance would allow a right or special privilege that is not
otherwise allowed in the district. Staff finds that the setback regulations could be
accommodated by the design of the homes or eliminating lots to provide sufficient area to
comply with the unified development code (UDC). Additional methods would be to seek a
Planned Unit Develop (PUD) or a rezone (RZ) of the property. The PUD process would
allow the applicant to request reduced dimensional standards and if the property were rezoned
to an R-4 zone, the interior side setback would be a minimum of 5 feet (see Section 8 above).
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Staff finds that there is no undue hardship that would prevent the applicant from developing
the site consistent with the R-2 setback standards outlined in UDC Table 11-2A-4. It appears
that sole reason for seeking the variance is based upon building design. The Unified
Development Code (UDC) allows for a reduction in buildable lots without submitting a new
preliminary plat. Staff finds the property could be platted with fewer and larger lots to
accommodate multiple home designs.
C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff finds the reduced setback would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and/or
welfare as other residential zoning districts have less restrictive interior side setbacks than the
R-2 zone.
Kingsbridge VAR-11-001 - 8 -