Loading...
Minutes - 2010 - Design Review - 04/08/2010 - Regular DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES The Design Review Board met in regular session, April 8,2010, Vice-Chairman Grubb presiding. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairman Grubb calls the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: The following members were present: GRUBB, BARNES, BUTLER. ABSENT: MC CULLOUGH, KOCI, PASCUA,WHITTAKER. A quorum is present. 3. CONSENT AGENDA . Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Design Review Board member, City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the Rules of Order. . Any item on the Consent Agenda that contains written recommendations from the City of Eagle shall be adopted as part of the Design Review's Consent Agenda approval motion unless specifically stated otherwise. A. Minutes of February 11,2010. Barnes moves to accept the consent agenda as written. Seconded by Butler. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. DR-04-07 MOD - Modification to a Multi-tenant Office Buildine - Gale Pooley: Gale Pooley, represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, is requesting design review approval to modifY the approved site plan for the 1 ,872-square foot muIti- tenant office building. The proposed modification includes reducing the required 24- foot drive aisle to 12-feet wide south of the parking on the south side of the building and the removal of the patio area on the north side of the building. The 0.18-acre site is located on the south side of East Winding Creek Drive approximately 430-feet west of Hill Road at 979 East Winding Creek Drive. Barnes moves to continue DR-04-07 MOD - Modification to a Multi-tenant Office Building to the next regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting. Seconded by Butler. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. 6. REPORTS: A. Design Review Board: Walgreens update. Discussion on next meeting. No Debbie next time. B. Staff: K:\DESCREV\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\DR-04-08-1 Omin.doc 7. ADJOURNMENT: Butler moves to adjourn at 6:10pm. Seconded by Barnes. ALL A YE...MOTION CARRIES. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ~(i-+<9-.~ - SHARON K. BERGMANN CITY CLERK/TREASURER ~ ERIC R. MCCULLOUGH ------ CHAIRMAN "" ,""""," ", OF ~ ", ...."'{ c-,! 0 I, ....' '\.'\. .......... 'f #.,,,. .. 0'" · .."~ ' f .... ~ \' 0 R "11' ... '\ ~: :00 ~~:. :: * : .....- : * : :: : . : ~~ ..":i-SEAL..,,: ~ ~ (j) e. Ch ' .. 0 ~ .... /> ...<\'POR "....~~.. ,,," ~ ',-. ~ ........ ~',. ," "'" ]'J; OF \~ ,...... I" I"~ """111"" A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. K:\DESI_ REV\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\DR-04-08-1 Omin.doc MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW BANNER BANK BUILDING 950 W. BANNOCK STREET, SUITE 520, BoIsE, ID 83702 TELEPHONE: (208) 331-1800 FAX: (208) 331-1202 TO: Design Review Board, Staff FROM: Paul J. Fitzer DATE: April 7, 2010 RE: DR 04-07 MOD - Modification of Pooley Design Review Application Upon our review of DR 04-07 MOD, we respectfully request that the Design Review Board remand the above -referenced modification application to staff based upon the following: 1. The Sought -After Relief can only be provided via a Variance Gale Pooley, represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning, is requesting design review approval to modify the approved site plan for the 1,872 square foot multi - tenant office building. As the application is currently articulated, Mr. Pooley wishes to utilize the design review process to reduce the required twenty-four foot (24') paved, drive aisle to twelve feet (12'). Eagle City Code 8-4-4-2(F) requires that access for 90 degree parking be provided by a twenty-four (24) foot drive aisle. Eagle City Code 8-4-3 requires all drive aisles to be paved. The sought-after relief is not a modification of the subject property's design pursuant to ECC 2-2-4, but rather a variance to two required ordinance provisions of the Eagle City Code. ECC 2-2-4 is neither the appropriate medium nor is the Design Review Board the proper venue to evaluate such a request. A. The Design Review Board Pursuant to ECC 2-2-4, the Design Review Board is vested with the responsibility and jurisdiction to: ... protect property rights and values, enhance important environmental features of the city, and to ensure that the general appearance of buildings and structures, along with development of the land, shall not impair or preclude the orderly and harmonious development of the community. The board shall review all development proposals within the design review district. Within this district, the board, with input from the zoning administrator, shall regulate landscaping and beautification laws, review building design, and review site planning, signs, grading, development. This includes, but is not limited to, the regulation and restriction of the type of building, number of stories, size of building, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, or use of buildings and structures. The board shall ensure compliance with the requirements of the respective design review overlay districts, city of Eagle comprehensive plan, and relevant ordinances. Thus, while the Board is vested with the authority to review the relative site design of the project including the proposed layout of the drive aisle, notably, the Board is not vested with the authority to review or recommend a variance relieving an applicant from complying with any required Eagle City Code provision; specifically the required width of a drive aisle and that it be paved. B. The vested authority to issue a variance rests with the City Council following a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Pursuant to ECC 8-7-4-2, the Council alone is vested with the authority to grant an applicant a variance thereby relieving the applicant ... from the terms of this title as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this title would result in unnecessary hardship. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for issuance of a variance. Variances shall not be granted on the grounds of convenience or profit, but only where strict application of the provisions of this title would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance may not be granted unless the council makes specific findings of the fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it which support conclusions that the above mentioned standards and conditions have been met by the applicant. Pursuant to ECC 2-1-5, the Planning and Zoning Commission, not the Design Review Board, is vested with the authority to conduct a preliminary public hearing on all variance applications prior to proceeding to the City Council. According to Mr. Nickel's narrative attached to the application, Mr. Pooley's property currently has a paved fifteen foot (15') drive aisle, together with a cross access agreement on the adjacent property preserving the remainder of the required access. This adjacent property is currently bare ground and has recently entered into foreclosure with current ownership held by a bank. Mr. Pooley may choose to present a variance application to the City based upon the unique physical characteristics of site. Mr. Pooley has, in the past, described the .18 acre site as a f''`‘. "glorified hallway". According to Mr. Nickel, at the time of the original design review application (approved in May, 2007), Mr. Pooley had a verbal agreement with the original adjacent property owner to pave that portion of the drive aisle that was not on the applicant's property. This improvement would have provided the desired aisle width of twenty-four feet (24'). Mr. Nickel reports that the property is now under bank ownership that evidently has chosen not to honor this agreement. Thus, Mr. Pooley may choose to present an application for a variance to the City to consider whether this constitutes an unnecessary hardship. C. The Process The requisite process is governed by ECC 8-7-4-2(B), which requires that the City Council cannot issue a variance to any provision in the Eagle City Code ... unless and until a written application for a variance is submitted to the administrator and the council containing: 1. Name, address and phone number of applicant(s); 2. Legal description of property; 3. Description of nature of variance requested; and 4. A narrative statement demonstrating that the requested variance conforms to the following standards: a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this title; c. That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; and d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. D. Implied variances are prohibited as a matter of law. Were the Board to simply grant the applicant's request to modify the approved site plan depicting a reduction in the width or paving of the drive aisle, such would amount to an implied variance without process. "A city council or county commissioner may not permit an implied variance violative of land use ordinances."' Only through a duly noticed variance proceeding where interested members of the public are provided notice and an opportunity to testify pertaining to the variance, can the City Council relieve an applicant from complying with an 1 Hubbard v. Canyon County Com'rs, 106 Idaho 436,437, 680 P.2d 537, 538 (1984). ordinance. II. CONCLUSION While Mr. Pooley may wish to continue that part of his design review application pertaining to the removal of the patio, the Design Review Board is precluded from modifying the site plan by reducing the required twenty-four foot (24') paved drive aisle. Mr. Pooley must seek approval for a variance to ECC 8-4-4-2(F) and ECC 8-4-3 through the established procedures. The recommended procedural action at this juncture is to remand the application to staff as the application, devoid of the variance process, is incomplete.