The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About80-V-13 Setback Compliance - Interstate ConstructionSTATE OF I DA H O JOHN V. EVANS GOVERNOR IOAHO TRANSPORTATION EOARO CARL C. MOORE - CHAIRMAN LLOYD F. EARRON -VICE CHAIRMAN ROY I. STROSCHEIN - MEMEER DARRELL V MANNING DI RECTOR TRATI SPORTAflOTI D EPARTM E TI T Dtvrst0]l 0F llrGlltTAYs KIETH GREEN, PE., AOMINISTRATOR Rcply to: OISTRICT 3 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. BOX 8028 BOTSE, IoAHO 83707 PHoNE (208) 33{-2071 Re 4 January 1980 It4elvin G. Lewis, P. E. City Engineer Ci ty of Cal dwel I 704 Blaine Street Caldwell, Idaho 83605 Reduced Building Setback Caused by New Highway Construction. Dear Mr. Lewi s: _ In eariy December, Ted Gwin, Assistant District Engineer, Engineering, andmyself met.with you to discuss what impact, if any, a reduction in-',building set-back" would have on properties, if caused by highway construction. This is-an area. the thpartnent is exploring to be sure that a proper assessment of damage has been made and thus prevent iubsequent action agiinit the owner by the City of Cal dwel I . In reviewing the Interstate Project through Caldwell, there are L2 resi-dential and 2 commercial properties which will have less than 20 foot building setback after construction. I believe the discussion indicated that setbacksfor commercial properties would not be a problem for the City of Caldwell. As was mentioned, the type of neighborhood and the remaining economic lifeof the structures, would be one of the major considerations in de[ermining if aproperty should be made to conform and if there would be damage as a result ofthe taking. _ 0n this particular project, most of the effected dwellings are old and havea relatively short remaining economic life. considering the eiisting cormercialinfluence along the Interstate, and if community trEnds-hold true, there will beincreased pressures to comfiErcialize, therefore, the houses will disappear throughnatural attri tion. stfF ratflspaanflail ilEtts Pfraafrfss EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER conti nued SUBJECT b Z--3 &/u.r{rrt,LDAT ItA r5 J trn lluu) a oC CT LOOOtj 3 -fi rfu e/.n*e/Q5 otoF tL@ o h ///- afUl/e/O \ /ruo {d, Lt bu, td' fuo(t t/l h ,p lJ rewarw d / at/o d /"1'/ / ac-clultltu+ ./of J bo r/"d. /8x lo z uf, ee ,> one a ar O12€ /'),) D {" / firca &+xf/e d Tl* buttdt Peo l// ,y a"/ utqJJ-Tru cqn $ frr"u, rn krtov lot ltu,c SUB.TECT ll-uA,e-,/ (,Oh ({wqn,DATE /t A6> - q a7 C, t4b x/b4 Z (r t /-Zry(/ L /€ Lr4ell I , OOO t3 >O d -/?-/5a t/ flz S€t bc)oLs' cl l/Y cf alo O r L ln lrtll/C 7 c)/ StJ L (r 0ce +/,nnQ ,/,J Uvtl *sr' / s ru' 3 Q',L,r d ftwttJ 14ilr D J /,3 ry / - a TCESUBJ E*f o?s tq)-zl .bn&5' DArE 3 ,>Vtr - -/L / 5 Du< f-e o*sr4ryrsrzd t, xr ah I * u @- rt o tri e/eo/t S(aC Lu.2 d trr/ sh lhtlt,e a4l Ln l/vl -2/<)t) l- ).bt/rt'<srrzLu taf NOU) ZZ, onTo,q T sz/ /r-bs, zA orr.l Ult' 1- Jt uil'ef ' t,// s/4 tr6 r*,'7L //nr<_"r r€/-u9/z r{1 tl , t a SUB.IECT t/t*.rF,rhL'^Zoultn j DATN c C,C 131, DI fr4r t OO-rt- c A WM l-1rl-\/ $ ru ru/uMM AJ fll lP I .l & t , / n o Administrative PoIicy A-19-01 rINA}ICING CONSTRUCTION OF STATE HIGHWAYS IN CITIES Subject Lo Lhe following guidelines, the State Highway Administrator is arrthorized to prepare and consummaLe constrrrction agreements beLween t.ht' I)r:parLmenL anrJ Iocal units of 'governmt:nt on Stat.e highway projecLs Ltrrougtr ciLies: - Preliminary and const.rucEion engineering shaIl be performed by theState unless other arrangements are made by written agreement between the ciLy authorities and the Idaho Transportation Department. The State will provide highway matching funds to pay for construction including curbs and gutters, sidewalks, grading, paving, structures, storm sewers, traffic control devices, street lighting, and right-of-way. Where sidewalks are not required, the State shall provide a graded sidewalk space. Ltlere sidewalks are to be provided by abutting property owners by arrangementwith the City, the State shall provide a graded sidewalk space and the owners shall provide for the sidewalk paving. Underground utilities shall be determined to have a projected workingIife of at least 25 years or they shall be replaced. Adjustment of city- owned ut,ilities (sewers, waLer lines. conduits, power systems, etc. ) shall be done prior to construction. Costs shall be apporLioned in an equitable way with due regard to remaining life of existing utility components, im- provement of the system, etc. If the city desires Lo increase capacity, it must pay for additional costs. - If proposed storm sewers will serve both city streets and Statehighways, city storm sewers may be connected to State facilities, with thecost apportioned in an equitable manner. When a city requests improvements in excess of those intended by thestate, the additional cost sharr be borne by the city. Compensation for right-of-way shall not include payment for existingsidewalks, curb and gutters, etc., which are to be replaced by the State or which will remain in place. Where the State assumes an obligation of theproperty owner to construct curb and gutter, sidewalks, etc., the cost ofconstructing these items wiIl be deducted from payments for right-of-way. When the taking of a portion of a property for right-of-way will render the remainder nonconforming with respect to setbacks, parking orother features, the city wilI be responsible for providirg, by another ordinance, that no penalties, cither civil or criminal, witl be assessedby reason of such nonconformance. This wiII be done even if the propertyis nonconforming and under "grandfather" rights prior to the taking. Prior to both project scheduling and advertising for construction of any project on the State Highway System, there shal1 be agreements betweenthe city and the Idaho Transportation Department setting forth the responsi- bilities of each party. The construction agreement sha1l include provisions for final inspection and acceptance by the city of traffic signals or other facilities which are to be maintained by the city.o (Over) i AS ENGINEER I S ANALYSIS ZONING REGULATIOilS RELATED TO NEW HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION ( r-8on ) Hlehvay Department Bleht-of-vay Divl slon I s con-Essentialy the c er ned, about : 1 2 3 Red,uctlon of setbacks to less than nininum reguirenents of the zon,lng ordlnance. Red,uction of build,ing sites the zoning ord.inance (5rooO sq. ft. corner lot). belov minlnums sq. ft. lnslde requlred, by 1ot and, ?,500 Red.uctlon of off-street parking areas below tbe ntnlmums required by the zonlng ord,lnance. Of primary concern to the Hlghvay Department 1s by the Plannlng and Zoning Commis-slon to requlre be moved, immed,iately to neet particularly front requtrement s regarding setbacks. the requirement that buildings setback or other It voul6 be my thinking that it vould, not be lmportant to the Ctty in thls area to require the owners to take i,nmediate action vith regard to setbacks, provid.ing the City is not put ln a posltlon of definedlng it self in the court s . tlith regaral to Lot uLzes, if the lot atready erl8ts anil la 1e88 than the orallnance requireuents, it can DoY be conaldcred a fot of rccoral and catr be uaed untter thls requlrencnt. For ]-ots that are ceusca to becone a size less than the requlle[ents ' a variance froD the Plan- nlng end Zoning CouDisslon Yould be requlred to uae the lots for building sites or for aalallt1on8 to existlng builillngs. In consideration of specifie questions asked by Mr. Vanlloy of the Highray Department , I heve the folloving conment s : I . In my d.i scus s ion vith Mr . VanNoy, I thlnk he means vould the P and Z require the lnmediate cornplLance vlth setbaeks and lot sizes. As I have d,tscussed abov€, it would be my oplnion that this requlrement not be mad'e. See the answer to Question I Property owners can make application for va.riences for future buildlng and for remodeling on propertles vhlch have been consid,ered. to lack compliance. The P and, Z wou1d act upon these applications on an lncllvld,ua1 basls as they vou1d act upon any varlance appllcatlon that comes before them. U. Tbe ci.ty 13 not in a posltlon at this tiDe to conaitler' sucb aE ordlnanc e The baslc uethorl at tbe present tiEe to hendlc thc86 8ltuatlons vould be through the verlance procedure as the Clty docs not vaut to lnp1l- cate ltseff durlng the perioat of acqulBition of r/r by th. NlShYay DepartEent. 2 3 ,| 7!, AS ENGINEEN I S ANALYSIS ZONING REGULATIONS RELATED TO NEW HIGHWAY CONSTRUCT IOII ( r-8on ) Highvay Department Rieht-of-vay Divi s 1on t s con-Essentialy the cerned about: I 2 3 Red,uctlon of setbacks to less than mlnlmum requirements of the zoning ord,inance. Reductlon of bullding sites the zoning ord,inance ( 5, oOO se. ft. corner lot ) . belov minimum,s sq. ft. lnslde required. by lot and Trr00 Red,uct lon of of f -street parklng areaB belov the minlmums required. by the zoning ordlnance. Of primary concern to the Htshvay Department 1g the requirenent by the Planning and Zonlng Commis-slon to requlre that bu11din88 be mcved immedlately to meet part lcularly front setbaek or other requlrement s regarding setbacks . It vould, be my thinklng that lt vou1d, not be lmportant to the Clty in this area to require the ouners to take lmmediate actlon wlth regard to setbacks, provld.ing the Ctty is not put ln a positton of def lned,lng itself ln the courts. With regard to lot Blzes, if the lot alreaaly crlgtg entl le }ess than the ordlnance requlrements, lt can DolI be conalilereal B lot of recoril antl can be uaeal uDder thls requlreaent. tror lotB that are cauaed to becotre a size less than tbe requlrenents, a verlence froE the Plan- nlng anal Zooing Couuission Youlat be requlred to uae the lotB for bullillng siteE or for aaldltlons to existing bullillngB. In consiileration of apeclflc questlons esked by Mr. Venlloy of tbe Highvay DepartDeDt, I bave the folloring connents: 1. In my d.iscussion vith Mr. VanNoy, I thlnk he means vould. the P and Z require the tmmectlate eompllanee wlth setbaeks a.nd. lot sizes. As I have dlscussed abov€, it vould be my oplnion that this requlrement not be made. 2 . See the answer to Quest ion 1 3. Property oyners can Eake aPptlcation for variencee for future buildlng entl for reEodellag on properttes Yhlch have been congitlereil to lack co[pliaaco. The P end Zyould ect upon these eppllcatlons on aa lnallvlalual baals as they rould ect upolr any variance appllcatlon tbat comes before theE. L. Tbe clty ls not ln a poeltion at thls tl[e to conalder such an ordinance Tbe basic Bethoal at the preaent tiDe to handle theEe situatloDs roul-tl be tbrou8h the varience procedure as the Clty does not vaBt to lnp1L- cate itself during the perlod of acquisltion of r/v by thc Hlghvay DepartDent. STATE OF IDAHO . DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS TO Melvin G. Lewis, P. E 4 January 1980 Page 2 The purpose of the meeting and the intent of the discussion was to have the City of Caldwell analyze the reduction of setback and establish an ordi nance where- by the setback would not create an undue burden upon the pncperty owner. Some of the considerations already discussed are mentioned below: 1: Would the reduction be consideved a flagrant violation to the existing zoning ordinance. 2: Would the City bring corrective action against the property owners and compel them to comply with the present ordinance. 3: ltrould there be any restraints on future building or remodel ing on the property caused by the lack of compliance. 4: Would the City prepare an arn ndment to the prcsent ordinance whereby dr.rellings could exist with the reduced setback throughout their remaining economi c life. There are undoubtedly other areas which need to be Yesearched to detevmi ne what action is required to satisfy State policy, and l"hat tolerances can be accepted by the City of Caldwell. I am enclosing white prints showing the effected parcel s and the arnount of setback remaining. -t,le would appreciate lour response to our new policy (attached). Si nc el Y, EAN VAN NOY District Right of Agent enc. pms