HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportCITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: May 6, 2008
TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN%--
FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
(208)884-5533
SUBJECT: Silman
• VAR-08-003
Request for a variance to UDC Table 11-2A-5 to allow a structure
encroachment into the required rear yard setback in the R-4 zoning district
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Stanley Silman, is requesting a variance to UDC Table 11-2A-5, which requires a
minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is proposing a rear setback of approximately 9
feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance from the aforementioned UDC standard to allow the existing
enclosed patio structure to remain in its current location with the required rear yard setback. The
applicant's justification for the variance request is outlined below in Section 4.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending denial of the subject Variance application (VAR-08-003) for the reasons
listed herein. Staff finds that the application does not meet all of the findings required in the UDC for
the City Council to grant a variance (see Exhibit D for required findings).
3. PROPOSED MOTION
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number VAR-08-003
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 2008, for the following reasons: (you
should state specific reasons for denial.)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number VAR-08-
003, as presented during the hearing on May 6, 2008. (Please state how the subject findings are met)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number VAR-
08-003 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you
should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
1749 W. Lowry Street (Lot 10, Block 16, Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 6)
Located in the northeast '/a of Section 2, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
b. Owner:
Stanley Silman
1749 W. Lowry Street
Meridian, ID 83646
Silman VAR-08-003
PAGE 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
c. Applicant:
Same as Owner
d. Representative: Stanley Silman (Owner/Applicant)
e. Present Zoning: R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential District)
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to UDC Table 11-2A-
5 which requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet to be reduced to approximately 9 feet.
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: "The patio and patio roof was purchased (and existing) with
the property in 2003. I did not know that the posts holding up the patio roof were in violation of
Meridian building codes. I am a lay person and depended on the builder to properly permit this
building." See Applicant's narrative for more information.
4. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute a variance as determined by City Ordinance. By
reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5, Article A (Table 11-5A-
1), a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
b. Newspaper notifications published on: April 14, 2008 and April 28, 2008
c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 11, 2008
d. Applicant posted notice on site by: April 26, 2008
5. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Single-family residential property
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This property is surrounded by single-family
residential properties in Tumble Creek Subdivision.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Single-family residential, zoned R-4.
2. West: Single-family residential, zoned R-4.
3. South: Single-family residential, zoned R-4.
4. East: Single-family residential, zoned R-4.
d. History of Previous Actions: NA
6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING
No agency comments meeting was held specifically for this Variance application. All affected
agencies were informed about this request and given the opportunity to submit comments to the
Planning Department to be included in this report. No site specific comments or requirements were
provided for the Variance application by other agencies.
Silman VAR-08-003
PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
7. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
The following UDC section is pertinent to this application:
Table 11-2A-5: Dimensional Standards for the R4 District
R-4 STANDARD REQUIREMENT
Rear setback in feet 15
8. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
VAR: The applicant is requesting a variance to UDC Table 11-2A-5, which requires a 15 foot
rear building setback in the R-4 zoning district. There is an existing enclosed patio on the
property that is set back 97' from the rear property line on the east side and 9' 1" on the west side
of the structure (see site plan in Exhibit B). Additionally, there is a 10' wide public utilities,
drainage, and irrigation (PUDI) easement along the rear property line that is depicted on the plat
for this property. The structure encroaches approximately 11" into the PUDI easement on the
west end and approximately 5" into the PUDI easement on the east end of the structure.
The applicant states that when he purchased this property in 2003 (sight unseen as he was living
out of the area), he requested that the builder, John Flaherty Construction, add an awning over the
existing patio as part of purchase agreement. John Flaherty Construction subcontracted the work
to Patio Covers Unlimited (PCU) who constructed the awning within the rear setback area
without first obtaining the necessary permits from the Meridian Building Department. Mr. Silman
later contracted with PCU again to enclose the patio but states that he did not know that the posts
holding up the awning were constructed within the required rear setback area. Again this work
was completed without necessary permits
Abram Antonucci, Code Enforcement, did some research on the subject property and setback
issue and submitted the following comments: 1) The complaint that the structure had been
constructed within the rear setback area did not originate from a neighbor, but from a disgruntled
subcontractor that did some work for Mr. Silman. 2) PCU stated that Mr. Silman was made aware
that permits were needed for the additional work but that Mr. Silman knowingly told them to
continue construction without permits after PCU told him that that structure was within the
setback area. 3) Mr. Silman then hired more independent contractors to re-route the venting for a
fireplace and install electrical wiring without obtaining additional permits. 4) Code Enforcement
believes that both Mr. Silman and PCU are at fault. 5) Code Enforcement has 2 additional
structure violations pending in this subdivision for storage sheds with the setback and it would
create a large precedence if Mr. Silman is not required to move his structure.
Brent Bjornson, Building Department, also submitted comments on this application as follows: 1)
PCU was the contractor who performed the installation. The Building Department has confirmed
numerous additional violations from this contractor recently in other parts of the City. 2)
Permitting and setback violations exist on this property. 3) Mr. Silman acknowledged a minor
amount of electrical work that he subcontracted as well as an exhaust fan.
Staff visited the applicant's property with Code Enforcement on 4/30/08 to verify the setbacks of
the existing structure and found it to be approximately 9' 7 ' from the rear property line on the east
side and 9' 1" from the rear property line on the west side of the structure. The structure
encroaches 5'5"-5' 11" into the required rear setback area measured from the rear property line
and 5" to 11" into the PUDI easement along the rear property line. (Measurement ofsetrt is
fence line corresponds with the rear property line.)
based on the assumption that the
Silman VAR-08-003
PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Idaho Code §67-6516: Per Idaho Code §67-6516, "A variance is a modification of the bulk and
placement requirements of the ordinance as to lot size, lot coverage, width, depth, front yard, side
yard, rear yard, setbacks, parking space, height of buildings, or other ordinance provision
affecting the size or shape of a structure or the placement of the structure upon lots, or the size of
lots. A variance shall not be considered a right or special privilege, but may be granted to an
applicant only upon a showing of undue hardship because of characteristics of the site and that
the variance is not in conflict with the public interest."
Per UDC I 1-513-4.E, in order to grant a Variance, the City Council must be able to meet the
following findings:
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;
3) The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff has reviewed these findings and believes 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. Further, Staff believes that there are no undue hardships due to the
characteristics of the site that would prevent the applicant from meeting the required setbacks. If
the Council should decide to grant the Variance, Staff believes that it would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, and/or welfare. However, the City Council should rely on any testimony
provided at the public hearing to determine this finding. Further, because of the existing building
violations in addition to the setback issue, Staff cannot support the requested variance.
Approval of a Variance by City Council would allow the existing enclosed patio to remain in its
current location within the rear setback and PUDI easement. Denial would require the shed to be
relocated or removed if it cannot be relocated outside of the rear setback and easement areas.
Note: Because the existing structures encroaches 5" to 11" (varies) into the 10' wide PUDI
easement that exists along the rear property line, if Council approves the Variance and a rear
setback of 9 feet is granted as requested, the structure would need to be removed (by the applicant
or at the applicant's expense) if access to the full width of the easement was ever necessary.
Further, if Council approves the variance, the applicant must seek a vacation of the portion of the
PUDI easement that the structure occupies.
b. Summary Recommendation: Staff is recommending denial of the subject Variance
application (VAR-08-003) for the reasons stated above. Staff finds that the application does
not meet all of the findings required in the UDC in order for the City Council to grant a variance
(see Exhibit D). Further, Staff recommends that within 30 days, from the date of approval of
the Findings, the structure be relocated or removed to be in conformance with the setback
standards of the R-4 district.
9. EXHIBITS
A. Vicinity/Zoning Map
B. Site Plan
C. Site Photos
D. Required Findings from UDC (Variance)
Silman VAR-08-003
PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Exhibit A: Vicinity/Zoning Map
Exhibit A - Page ]
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Exhibit B: Site Plan
c• �t jy���
i
b
R
Aia u
Exhibit B - Page 1
i
Enclosed
Patio Structure
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Exhibit C: Site Photos
Exhibit C - Page 1
a
a
04/30/2008
W
Side Yard
(east)
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Exhibit D: Required Findings from UDC (Variance)
The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings listed in
Section 11-5B-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 for this site would grant a right or special privilege to the
applicant that is not otherwise allowed in the district.
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Staff finds that there are no undue hardships due to the characteristics of the site that would
prevent the applicant from meeting the setbacks required in UDC Table 11-2A-5.
C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Because the structure encroaches within the rear setback area, Staff finds that granting the
requested variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and/or welfare because it
does not obstruct vision of the public right-of-way. However, the City Council should rely on any
testimony provided at the public hearing to determine this finding.
Exhibit D - Page I
VAR 08-003
Machelle Hill
From: Larry Strough [Larry.Strough@itd.idaho.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 8:05 AM
To: Barbara Shiffer; Machelle Hill
Cc: Phil Choate
Subject: VAR 08-003
Attachments: SKMBT_C25008040907590.pdf
We have no comment on the enclosed application
Page I of 1 GL
RECEIVED
APR 0 9 2008
Clint OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
Thank You <<SKMBT_C25008040907590.pdf>>
4/9/2008
CTI'Y OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: May 6, 2008
TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN~
FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
(208) 884-5533 1 D A H 4
SUBJECT: Silman
• VAR-08-003
Request for a variance to UDC Table 11-2A-5 to allow a structure
encroachment into the required rear yard setback in the R-4 zoning district
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Stanley Silman, is requesting a variance to UDC Table 11-2A-5, which requires a
minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant is proposing a rear setback of approximately 9
feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance from the aforementioned UDC standard to allow the existing
enclosed patio structure to remain in its current location with the required rear yard setback. The
applicant's justification for the variance request is outlined below in Section 4.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending deniai of the subject Variance application (VAR-08-003) for the reasons
listed herein. Staff finds that the application does not meet all of the findings required in the UDC for
the City Council to grant a variance (see Exhibit D for required findings).
3. PROPOSED MOTION
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number VAR-08-003
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 6, 2008, for the following reasons: (you
should state specific reasons for denial.)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number VAR-08-
003, as presented during the hearing on May 6, 2008. (Please state how the subject findings are met)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number VAR-
08-003 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you
should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
1749 W. Lowry Street (Lot 10, Block 16, Tuxnble Creek Subdivision No. 6)
Located in the northeast '/a of Section 2, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
b. Owner:
Stanley Silman
1749 W. Lowry Street
Meridian, ID 83646
Silman VAR-08-003 PAGE 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
c. Applicant:
Same as Owner
d. Representative: 5tanley Silxnan (OwnerlApplicant)
e. Present Zoning: R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential District)
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to UDC Table 11-2A-
5 which requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet to be reduced to approximately 9 feet.
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: "The patio and patio roof was purchased (and existing) with
the property in 2003. I did not know that the posts holding up the patio roof were in violation of
Meridian building codes. I am a lay person and depended on the builder to properly permit this
building." See Applicant's narrative for more information.
4. PROCESS FACTS
a. The subject application will in fact constitute a variance as deternuned by City Ordinance. By
reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5, Article A(Table 11-SA-
1), a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
b. Newspaper notifications published on: April 14, 2008 and Apri128, 2008
c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 11, 2008
d. Applicant posted notice on site by: Apri126, 2008
5. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Single-family residential property
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This property is surrounded by single-family
residential properties in Tumble Creek Subdivision.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Single-family residential, zoned R-4
2. West: Single-family residential, zoned R-4.
3. South: Single-family residential, zoned R-4
4. East: Single-family residential, zoned R-4.
d. History of Previous Actions: NA
6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING
No agency comments meeting was held specifically for this Variance application. All affected
agencies were informed about this request and given the opportunity to submit comments to the
Planning Department to be included in this report. No site specific comments or requirements were
provided for the Variance application by other agencies.
5ilman VAR-08-003 PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARIlVG DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
7. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
The following UDC section is pertinent to this application:
Table 11-2A-5: Dimensional Standards for the R-4 District
Rear setback (in feetl I 15
8. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
VAR: The applicant is requesting a variance to UDC Table 11-2A-5, which requires a 15 foot
rear building setback in the R-4 zoning district. There is an existing enclosed patio on the
property that is set back 9' 7" from the rear property line on the east side and 9' 1" on the west side
of the structure (see site plan in EJChibit B). Additionally, there is a 10' wide public utilities,
drainage, and irrigation (PUDI) easement along the rear property line that is depicted on the plat
for this property. The structure encroaches approximately 11" into the PUDI easement on the
west end and approximately 5" into the PUDI easement on the east end of the structure.
The applicant states that when he purchased this property in 2003 (sight unseen as he was living
out of the area), he requested that the builder, John Flaherty Construction, add an awning over the
existing patio as part of purchase agreement. John Flaherty Construction subcontracted the work
to Patio Covers Unlimited (PCU) who constructed the awning within the rear setback area
without first obtaining the necessary pernuts from the Meridian Building Department. Mr. Silman
later contracted with PCU again to enclose the patio but states that he did not know that the posts
holding up the awning were constructed within the required rear setback area. Again this work
was completed without necessary pernuts
Abram Antonucci, Code Enforcement, did some research on the subject property and setback
issue and submitted the following comments: 1) The complaint that the structure had been
constructed within the rear setback area did not originate from a neighbor, but from a disgruntled
subcontractor that did some work for Mr. 5ilman. 2) PCU stated that Mr. 5ilman was made aware
that pernuts were needed for the additional work but that Mr. Silman knowingly told them to
continue construction without pernuts after PCU told him that that structure was within the
setback area. 3) Mr. Silman then hired more independent contractors to re-route the venting for a
fireplace and install electrical wiring without obtaining additional permits. 4) Code Enforcement
believes that both Mr. Silman and PCU are at fault. 5) Code Enforcement has 2 additional
structure violations pending in this subdivision for storage sheds with the setback and it would
create a large precedence if Mr. Silman is not required to move his structure.
Brent Bjornson, Building Department, also submitted comments on this application as follows: 1)
PCU was the contractor who performed the installation. The Building Department has confirmed
numerous additional violations from this contractor recently in other parts of the City. 2)
Pernutting and setback violations exist on this property. 3) Mr. Silman acknowledged a minor
amount of electrical work that he subcontracted as well as an exhaust fan.
Staff visited the applicant's property with Code Enforcement on 4/30/08 to verify the setbacks of
the existing structure and found it to be approximately 9'7" from the rear property line on the east
side and 9' 1" from the rear property line on the west side of the structure. The structure
encroaches 5'S"-5' 11" into the required rear setback area measured from the rear property line
and 5" to 11" into the PUDI easement along the rear property line. (Measurement of setback is
based on the assumption that the fence line corresponds with the rear property line.)
Silman VAR-08-003 PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Idaho Code §67-6516: Per ldaho Code §67-6516, "A variance is a modification of the bulk and
placement requirements of the ordinance as to lot size, lot coverage, width, depth, front yard, side
yard, rear yard, setbacks, parking space, height of buildings, or other ordinance provision
affecting the size or shape of a structure or the placement of the structure upon lots, or the size of
lots. A variance shall not be considered a right or special privilege, but may be granted to an
applicant only upon a showing of undue hazdship because of characteristics of the site and that
the variance is not in conflict with the public interest."
Per UDC 11-SB-4.E, in order to grant a Variance, the City Council must be able to meet the
following findings:
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;
3) The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff has reviewed these findings and believes 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. Further, Staff believes that there are no undue hardships due to the
characteristics of the site that would prevent the applicant from meeting the required setbacks. If
the Council should decide to grant the Variance, Staff believes that it would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, and/or welfare. However, the City Council should rely on any testimony
provided at the public hearing to determine this finding. Further, because of the existing building
violations in addition to the setback issue, Staff cannot support the requested variance.
Approval of a Variance by City Council would allow the existing enclosed patio to remain in its
current location within the rear setback and PUDI easement. Denial would require the shed to be
relocated or removed if it cannot be relocated outside of the rear setback and easement areas.
Note: Because the existing structures encroaches 5" to 11" (varies) into the 10' wide PUDI
easement that exists along the rear property line, if Council approves the Variance and a rear
setback of 9 feet is granted as requested, the structure would need to be removed (by the applicant
or at the applicant's expense) if access to the full width of the easement was ever necessary.
Further, if Council approves the variance, the applicant must seek a vacation of the portion of the
PUDI easement that the structure occupies.
b. Summary Recommendation: Staff is recommending denial of the subject Variance
application (VAR-08-003) for the reasons stated above. Staff finds that the application does
not meet all of the findings required in the UDC in order for the City Council to grant a variance
(see Exhibit D). Further, Staff recommends that within 30 days, from the date of approval of
the Findings, the structure be relocated or removed to be in conformance with the setback
standards of the R-4 district.
9. EXHIBITS
A. Vicinity/Zoning Map
B. Site Plan
C. Site Photos
D. Required Findings from UDC (Variance)
Silman VAR-08-003 PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Exhibit A: Vicinity/Zoning Map
E~ibit A - Page 1
CTTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Exhibit B: Site Plan
,_ .., t-C a .. ~r. , aelNh. NLdN#WR`Y CCs+ala•
....f.....»,.......~........................,.«....--,.,...-~..a ... _'_ ~.~.~.'.~f~~ r ,„~.~y ~.W...~..._._...___..__._~.
i
JA'~~r
..i..._ .._..-w° ~~""..~..~f~-..v..w.+.rr~ '~ /f~16
~R~ ..a.......~.
:)IIUb'li111L$.lii! µ g,
~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
Enclosed
Patio Structure
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _,~
~ . , _. _ ~
4 ~ ~.. ~ • ~~
' • ~ .. I f ~ . ' ~,,,rr
. ~u '~ ~ ti~
.- ,~ ~ -r . .~ ~_~
... } ~ . *
, ? . .
~ t ~. _ _Kx. '- •
Z
.. ~ ., ~ ~ wr ~111F ~ y„ '
~~ '. ' .. .
~ ~~ ... ~ v ~~'~i
~ .
_ . ..
~- . ~ . _' ~~,.•tr+t,.., v.• -~,nr -.~. ~,~+w .
/
. . ' . ~^ . ' ' - ' ' • NY.t 4i`..'t
~ . ~ `` 1
'i.~
E~ibit B - Page 1
CTI'Y OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Exhibit C: Site Photos
Exhibit C - Page 1
CTTY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Eachibit C - Page 2
CTI'Y OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF MAY 6, 2008
Exhibit D: Required Findings from UDC (Variance)
The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-65i6 and all the findings listed in
Section 11-SB-4.E of the UDC to revaew 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 for this site would grant a right or special privilege to the
applicant that is not otherwise allowed in the district.
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Staff finds that there are no undue hardships due to the characteristics of the site that would
prevent the applicant from meeting the setbacks required in UDC Table 11-2A-5.
C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Because the structure encroaches within the rear setback area, Staff finds that granting the
requested variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and/or welfare because it
does not obstruct vision of the public right-of-way. However, the City Council should rely on any
testimony provided at the public hearing to determine this finding.
Exhibit D - Page 1