HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Planning~~~~~~~
Project: Silman Setback MAY O 6 200~
City Of Meridian
Location: 1749 W. Lowry Street (Lot 10, Block 16, Tumble Creek Subdivision No. 6) ~ity Clerk Oflace
Application: Variance to UDC Table 11-2A-5, which requires a 15 foot rear building setback in the R-4
zoning district.
History: 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. The structure encroaches 5' S"-5' 11" into
the required rear setback area measured from the rear property line. (Measurement of setback is based on
the assumption that the fence line corresponds with the rear property line.)
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 bui~lder, 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
(PCL~ 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
awning was constructed within the required rear setback area. Again this work was completed without
necessary pernuts
Abram Antonucci, Code Enforcement, research the subject property and setback issue and submitted the
following comrnents:
1) The complaint that the structure had been constructed within the rear setback area did not originate
from a neighbor, but frorn a disgruntled subcontractor that did some work for Mr. Silman.
2) PCU stated that Mr. Silman 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 pernuts.
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 precedent if Mr. Silman is not required to move his structure.
Brent Bjornson, Building Department, also subrnitted 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 Recommendation: Per ldaho Code §67-6516, 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.
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.
5/6/2008
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.
Elevations/Photos: Yes
Written Testimony since Staff Report: None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
Approval of a Variance by City Council would allow the existing enclosed patio to remain in its current
location within the rear setback. Additionally, there is a 10' wide public utilities, drainage, and irrigation
(PUDn easement along the rear property line that is depicted on the plat for this property. Because the
existing structures encroaches from 5" to 11" into the PUDI easement, if Council approves the Variance,
that portion of the structure encroaching into the PUDI easement would need to be removed (by the
applicant or at the applicant's expense) if access to the full width of the PUDI 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.
Denial would require the patio enclosure to be relocated or removed if it cannot be relocated outside of
the rear setback and easement areas.
Notes:
5/6/2008