HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaxwell Patio Arbors VAR-08-006CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
~E IDIZ IAN~-
~J
In the matter of request for a Variance to UDC Table 11-2A-5, which requires a 15-foot
rear yard building setback; and UDC 11-3A-7C, which limits fencing to 6 feet in height in
the R-4 district, by Sylvia Maxwell.
Case No(s). VAR-08-006
For the City Council Hearing Date of: August 12, 2008 (Findings on the August 26, 2008
City Council agenda)
A. Findings of Fact
Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 12, 2008,
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 12, 2008,
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August
12, ZOOS, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of August 12, 2008, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code
codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-SA.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). VAR-08-006
-1-
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon
the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August
12, 2008, incorporated by reference.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and
based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for a Variance is hereby approved.
D. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of August 12, 2008.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). VAR-08-006
-2-
B action of the i Council at its re tar meetin held on the ~da of
Y tY ~ g Y
2008.
COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED~~
COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BntD VOTED
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED
(TIE BREAKER)
~~~~~
`,,,,Max~Q~~~T,,,,,,~~ a Weerd
Attest: ~~``~~~ 't OF ~%Sij,'~,,
C~~ _~At~o ';
1 11
i _ ~L -
Jaycee lman, City Clerk y '~
~~ ~
''~~, ~9 `aq..,,''
Copy served upon Applicant, The 1~'Y~~nt, Public Works Department and City
i~ii~rii~ H~H~~
Attorney.
f
~: ry
By:~(,lr~l /~~ Dated:
City Clerk's Office
~-2~-(~~
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). VAR-08-006
-3-
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 2008
STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: August 12, 2008
TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN~
FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner
(208) 884-5533 ~ ~ ~ ~ O
SUBJECT: Maxwell
• VAR-08-006
Request for a variance to UDC Table 11-2A-5, which requires a 15-foot rear
yard building setback; and UDC 11-3A-7C, which limits fencing to 6 feet in
height in the R-4 district, by Sylvia Maxwell
1. SiTMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Sylvia Maxwell, is requesting a variance to UDC Table 11-2A-5, which requires a 15-
foot rear yard building setback; and UDC 11-3A-7C, which limits fencing to 6 feet in height in the R-
4 district. The applicant is proposing a rear setback of approximately 1 foot for an existing patio cover
and a fence (arbor) height of approximately 10 feet in two areas near the rear property line.
The applicant is requesting a variance from the aforementioned UDC standards to allow the existing
enclosed patio structure and fences (arbors) to remain in their current locations. The applicant's
justification for the requested variances is outlined below in Section 4.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the subject Variance application (VAR 08-006) for the
reasons listed herein. Staff finds that the application meets all of the findings required in the UDC
for the City Council to grant a variance (see Exhibit D for required findings).
The Meridian Citv Council heard this item on August 12.2008. At the uubLic hearing the
ounci annroved the subiect VA_R request
a.
L In favor: Joe Ad rianv (Annlicant's Renresentativel:
1L In onnosition: N one
111, Commenting: D eborah Silva
LY. Written testimo ny: Caralee Casey
y. tall nre en ~n~ aDD icatiOn: nna Ca nin¢
y1. Other staff com menting on annlication: None
,~. ev Issues of Discus sion by Council:
L Tono~ranhv of t he subiect nronerty in relation to the adiacent nronerty at the rear
y Kev Council Cha
s, 3. PROPOSED MOTION
L~Ioue
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number VAR-08-
006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 12, 2008. (Please state how the
subject fmdings are met)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number VAR-08-006
Maxwell Patio Arbors VAR-O8-003 PAGE 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 2008
as presented during the hearing on August 12, 2008 for the following reasons: (you should state
specific reasons for denial.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number VAR-
08-006 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:
1065 E. Peacock Street (Lot 22, Block 7, Sportsman's Point Subdivision No. 2)
Located in the northeast 1/a of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East
b. Owner:
Sylvia Maxwell
1065 E. Peacock Street
Meridian, ID 83642
c. Applicant:
Same as Owner
d. Representative: Sylvia Maxwell (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 15-foot reaz yazd building setback; and UDC 11-3A-7C, which limits fencing
to 6 feet in height in the R-4 district. The applicant is proposing a rear setback of approximately 1
foot for a patio cover and a fence (azbor) height of approximately 10'4" in two areas along the
reaz property line.
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: "Due to neighbor putting a second story addition on his home
and extending his 2°d story deck, I put in 2 plant arbors, 9' x 18', to create a privacy screening
between my home and his new construction. My patio has been up since 2004." 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-SA-
1), apublic hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
b. Newspaper notifications published on: July 21, 2008 and August 4, 2008
c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 18, 2008
d. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 30, 2008
5. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Single-family residential property
b. Description of Chazacter of Surrounding Area: This property is surrounded by single-family
residential properties in Sportsman's Point Subdivision.
Maxwell Pario Arbors VAR-08-003 PAGE 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 2008
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.
7. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
The following UDC sections are pertinent to this application:
Table 11-2A-5: Dimensional Standazds for the R-4 District:
R•4 STANDARD REQUIREMENT
Rear setback in feet 15
UDC 11-3A-6C.1: The maximum fence height shall not exceed six feet (6'), subject to the
provisions set forth in subsections C2 and C3 of this section. (Note: Subsections C2 and C3 are
not applicable to the subject YAR request.)
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
reaz yazd building setback; and UDC 11-3A-7C, which limits fencing to 6 feet in height in the R-
4 district.
There is an existing patio cover on the site that was constructed in 2004. The posts for the patio
cover are set back approximately 1 foot from the rear property line, approximately 14 feet into the
required reaz yard setback azea; the cover does not encroach into the required side yazd setbacks
(see aerial view of property in Exhibit B). There is also a 5-foot wide public utility, drainage, and
irrigation (PUDn easement along the rear property line that the subject patio cover encroaches
into. The PUDI easement is depicted on the plat for this property. The structure encroaches
approximately 4-feet into the PUDI easement.
There are also two arbors that stand approximatelyl O foot 4 inches tall and are approximately 14
foot 6 inches wide, that were constructed eazlier this yeaz. The azbors aze located adjacent to the
reaz property line (see site photos in Exhibit B). These azbors act as a barrier and screen the
property. The subject azbors aze considered fences according to UDC 11-1A-1 and as such, aze
limited in height to 6 feet (per UDC 11-3A-7C). The applicant hired a contractor to construct the
azbors to create a privacy screening between her property and her neighbor at 1050 E. Puffm
Street. The neighbor has constructed a second story over the garage and extended the deck out
Maxwell Patio Arbors VAR-08-003 PAGE 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 2008
toward the applicant's property creating a lesser degree of separation than is typical between
living azeas.
The land where the applicant's building pad for the house and rear yard area sit is approximately
2+ feet lower than the land at the rear property line (see photos in Exhibit B). The grade on which
the house sits on the adjacent property appears to be quite a bit higher than the applicant's. The
neighbor's second story deck appears to encroach significantly within the rear setback area,
giving them a bird's eye view into the applicant's property (see photos in Exhibit B). Because of
the difference in topography between the two properties and the proximity of the neighbor's deck
in relation to the applicant's rear yard, the applicant constructed a patio cover and arbors in hopes
of obtaining some privacy. Without the patio cover and arbors, the applicant claims she is unable
to sit at her kitchen table inside the house without it being visible from the neighbor's deck.
Staff visited the applicant's property on 8/1/08 to verify the setbacks of the patio cover and the
height of the arbors. Staff found that without the patio cover and arbors, the applicant's rear yard,
patio, and even inside the house in the dining area is highly visible to the neighbors due to the
lower topography of the site in relation to the adjacent property, which appears to be significantly
higher.
Staff checked with the Building Department to see if a building permit is required for the patio
cover and arbors. Staff found that because the patio cover is attached to the house, a building
permit is required. .The Building Department
stated that a building permit was not issued to that address for the aforementioned structures. The
applicant states that she was not aware that a permit had not been obtained because she hired a
contractor to do the work. Thus, she didn't realize she was in violation of City ordinances. The
applicant states that she did obtain permission from the homeowner's association for the
construction of both the patio cover and the arbors.
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 maybe 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 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 not grant a right or special privilege to the applicant that is not otherwise
allowed in the district. Due to the topography of this particular site being significantly lower than
the adjacent property, staff believes the variances are warranted. Further, Staff believes that there
is an undue hardship to this property owner due to the lower elevation of her property in relation
to her neighbor's property. 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 fording.
Maxwell Patio Arbors VAR-O8-003 PAGE 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 2008
Approval of a Variance by City Council would allow the existing patio cover to remain in its
current location within the rear setback and PUDI easement. The arbors would also be allowed to
remain at their current height and location. These structures would allow the screening of the
subject property from the neighboring property and create some privacy for the subject property
owner and relieve an undue hardship because of the topography of the site. Denial would require
the patio cover to be relocated or removed. The two arbors would need to be shortened to meet
the fencing requirements of 6 feet, or be removed.
Note: If the Council approves the Variance and a rear setback encroachment is granted as
requested, and a utility provider ever needs to get within their easement, that portion of the
structure encroaching into the PUDI easement would need to be removed (by the applicant or at
the applicant's expense), and the applicant will need to contact the City of Meridian building
department to obtain all necessary permits. If the Council approves the variance, another option
would be to require the applicant to seek a vacation of the portion of the PUDI easement that the
structure occupies.
b. Summary Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the subject Variance
application (VAR-08-00~ for the reasons stated above. Staff finds that the application meets
all of the findings required in the UDC in order for the City Council to grant a variance (see
Exhibit D). he Meridian City Counci heard this item on August 12.2008. At the nubLic
earin~ the Council annroved the subiect VAR request
9. EXI~BITS
A. Vicinity/Zoning Map
B. Aerial View of Property
C. Site Photos
D. Required Findings from UDC (Variance)
Maxwell Patio Arbors VAR-08-003 PAGE 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 2008
Exhibit A: Vicinity/Zoning Map
Exhibit A -Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 2008
Exhibit B: Aerial View of Property
Exhibit B -Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 2008
Exhibit C: Site Photos
Exhibit C -Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 2008
P ~1...
9
I
ti~
~~~~~
Exhibit C -Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 2008
Exhibit C -Page 3
CTI'Y OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 12, 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 I1-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:
Council finds that granting a variance for this site would grant a right or special privilege to the
applicant that is not otherwise typically allowed in the district. However, this site has some
constraints that make the approval of the subject variance appropriate.
B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site;
Council fmds that this site has topography characteristics that make it difficult to construct
privacy fencing and covers that meet the UDC standards.
C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Because the structures encroach into the rear setback area, but do not extend onto other private
property, Council finds that granting the requested variance would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, and/or welfare. Further, because it does not obstruct vision of the public
right-of--way, Council does not see a direct safety hazard. However, the structures do encroach
into the rear PUDI easement. Public utilities do have a right to access their current of future
facilities where the subject structures reside.
Exhibit D -Page 1