Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2014 Page 1

Transcription

1 Page 1 CVA / SCOTT STEWART Location: 1493 W. Saint Patrick Street VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE STREET-SIDE SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET AND REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO APPROXIMATELY 8 FEET FOR A DETACHED ASSESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1493 W. SAINT PATRICK STREET IN AN R-1C (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. David Moser (Current Planning) The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the streetside setback from 20 feet to approximately 2 feet and reduce the rear yard setback to approximately 8 feet for a detached accessory structure located at 1493 W. Saint Patrick Street in an R-1C zone. However, it should be noted the applicant can move, and will move the shed forward about a half a foot to the north in order to comply with the required 9-foot rear yard setback, but a variance will still be required for the encroachment into the street side for this detached accessory structure. Here is a short explanation of the requested variance. The subject property contains a single-family house and now the applicant has built a 168 square foot detached accessory structure for storage along Lindsay Avenue. This structure is not set on a foundation and at the time of construction the applicant intended to comply with setback requirements for accessory structures under 500 square feet and 14 feet in height. These reduced setbacks allow for a 3-foot interior and side yard setback and 9-foot rear yard setback, provided its 6 feet from other buildings. However, due to a misinterpretation of the Zoning Ordinance a variance is now required. This is because the reduced side yard setback is only for interior setbacks and is not for street side setbacks. In addition, the location of the existing subdivision pump house has caused some confusion since it is also located in the street side setback. It also should be noted the detached shed is located within a 10-foot public utility and irrigation easement as identified on the Dublin Estate Subdivision plat. This easement extends along the street side and rear property lines of the site. Encroachment into the easement is a concern since a variance can only be granted from dimensional standards of the Bose City Code and the variance cannot be granted from easements. In addition, the Planning Team cannot identify an exceptional circumstance or hardship associated with the subject property. It is a standard corner lot that complies with dimensional standards in size and width for the R-1C zone. It s approximately 7,000 square feet in size, 70-foot wide and due to the size and placement of the single-family house there s really no opportunity to locate a detached accessory structure onsite and comply with setbacks. The building location is also detrimental to public welfare since it is located in the public utility and irrigation easement. Its location and easement could hinder access for maintenance and repair for this infrastructure. It should be noted that the applicant has provided a letter from easement holders, in particular Ada County Highway District (ACHD) stating they do not have any specific concerns with the storage shed since it is not set on a foundation and can be moved. The applicant has also provided signatures from about 19 neighbors stating they have no concerns with the requested variance. However, the local water association, the subdivision s irrigation rotation manager did express some concerns with the variance due to its location next to the pump house and irrigation box. This is a photograph of the shed, the adjacent pump house and irrigation box as you can see.

2 Page 2 Finally, the Planning Team recommends denial of the variance due to lack of hardship or exceptional circumstance. Scott Stewart (Applicant) Can I bring the Power Point up online? The only thing he highlighted which I need to clarify is the opposition from Sam Steiner in regards to the easement within the subdivision. The easements, there is a 20-by-40 easement specifically for the pump house but it is not on our lot. It is specified as Lot 4 Block 2. We are Lot 5 Block 2 so the easement is not on our lot. We do have a 10-foot plat easement on everything within the subdivision. Again, if we need to for whatever reason, for example, somebody needs to dig something up, I m open to having the shed lifted up and temporarily moved. I have no problem with that which is why I didn t put it on a foundation. That s about the only thing I have to. David Moser I can get the power point working if you want. Scott Stewart That would be great if I can walk through everything because you kind of highlighted on everything I had done. Initially, I had called Planning & Zoning and I was given information on the phone the three-foot side setback and the nine-foot rear setback. Basically, I m asking for a variance for the side setback. I ll move it 6 inches to accommodate the rear setback of 9 feet. The only thing I m asking for is a side variance. He was stating 2 feet and my understanding was it was actually 3 feet, and I m 4½ feet from the sidewalk. That s what I m asking for. Initially, I didn t need a building permit because it was less than 200 square feet. I already knew that and I had a gut feel so I called Planning and Zoning to verify, do I need to be so far back from the sidewalk or from the rear property line? I was verbally told 3 feet from the side, 9 feet from the back. Not a problem from my standpoint because we ve already got that existing pump house which is.oh, you can kind of see it right here, the existing pump house. I m further in from the sidewalk than the pump house, specifically the overflow area, and the pump house itself is actually over 120 square feet. Just barely, but it s over 120 square feet so I didn t think I had a problem until somebody complained and that s when I find out, Oh, you re on a corner lot so I ve got to be 20 feet from the sidewalk. In order to put that into our backyard, when we first bought the place our backdoor neighbor and our irrigation it would flow water into our backyard. It would go up against the foundation so we ended up having to put a terracing into the back yard to alleviate anything from going up against the foundation. I never thought anything about it. It wasn t a big deal. I don t have any space to put even put a 120 square foot shed in the backyard, I m going to have to do away with that terracing and we re going to have water flow go down into our foundation again. Plus we would have to take out the trees we ve planted. We ve got evergreen trees we planted 9 years ago when we first bought the place. We would have to take all those things out. We would have to take out the patio cover that we ve installed and that s actually in a foundation, the patio cover and the poles are in the foundation so that would alleviate that. There s really no way we could put a shed in the backyard. It s just not big enough. Most of our yard is the front yard which we have tried to make extremely nice, not just for us but for the neighborhood. That goes through the history of the project. I ve even talked with Sam Steiner a year ago saying this is what I d like to do.

3 Page 3 Initially, I wanted to take the existing pump house and extend off of it and he didn t have a problem with it at that point as long as nobody else in the neighborhood had a problem with it. As long as he could get to the irrigation house. When we were installing the pavers to put this storage shed and my wife was out talking to him and she said, We would have about a foot between the irrigation spillway and that the shed. He said, That should be no problem as long as they can get to the pump house and now it has become a problem. I ve actually got 19 inches. I even offered to move the shed an additional foot and a half. I ve got this in the report, what I proposed and we agreed to that on the phone. It was verbally agreed to and then denied once I put everything in writing. So I m open to doing anything. We ve got 18 signatures from people in the neighborhood saying they are in favor of it. They have no problem with it and even if somebody has a problem with it, I m willing to move it another foot, if I have to. Even if there is a problem if ACHD or Idaho Power, which Idaho Power has said they don t have an issue with it. They would have to have an inspector come out to give something in writing saying they don t have a problem with it but ACHD has provided a letter, the New York Irrigation has provided a letter saying they do not have an issue with is. There are no easement problems. I don t know what else to do. Commissioner Gibson Did you subcontract to have this shed built or did you build it yourself? Scott Stewart I had somebody come in and build it. Commissioner Gibson What s the platform made of? Scott Stewart Two by fours. I can t think of the pressure treated 2 by 4. Commissioner Gibson Just an approximate of weight. Do you have any idea what it would weigh in order to move it off the easement if you needed to? Scott Stewart No, I don t. I have actually called somebody that does building moving. They move buildings and I found out it would cost me $150 to have them move it 6 inches, so I know they can come and do that. Commissioner Miller I understand your circumstance but the standard for a variance is relatively high and it speaks to two things in particular; exceptional circumstance or a hardship resulting from the nature of the property. Not things you ve done with the property but things which are inherent in the property itself. The one thing you said that may sway me is the discussion of the terracing and water flow. Can you talk some more about that and how that is unique to your property?

4 Page 4 Scott Stewart The property directly behind us, they are approximately 2 feet above us on grade so when their irrigation water would go on and our irrigation water, because we re right up at the same level at the back part of the property as they are, everything would just flow right down into our foundation. We had to do something to reduce the actual water flow coming down in there or else it was going to cause a problem with our foundation at some point. Commissioner Miller Do you have a picture of that? Scott Stewart I do actually. It s not a great picture. Appendix E, I ve got it on here showing the terracing. What we ve got is railroad ties. At the back part of the fence we ve got beauty bark which is mounded up and then that comes down onto paver section and then right here, I m showing the railroad ties, so back in this area up against the fence we probably have a 9 inch mound of dirt to be able to keep the water from flowing down, then the flat area will help keep the water from flowing down even further so it doesn t get down to the house. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Sam Steiner I m the Water Rotation Manager and the agent register of Dublin Estates Subdivision. I would like to follow up and say Scott and Kim do a wonderful job with their landscaping. It s always first class and I know it would be a top of the line building, if they complete it. I know most of the people in our subdivision would agree with me on that. They have a wonderful yard and they do a good job with it so with that in mind I don t think the folks who signed that petition understand exactly what it takes to maintain that pump. The proximity of the building to that pump, I ll tell you to maintain just the vault area that s less than two feet from the structure, there s not enough room there to do it. Scott mentioned he had talked to me about moving it. I had asked for two to three feet. He had come back with a one-foot move and when I talked to Idaho Power about this whole thing he had suggested if you need access to the pump he would pay to actually have the lines lowered. When I talked to Idaho Power, they actually sent a fellow out by the name of Dave Boots and he took a look at it and said, well we do lower access lines, which means the little lines that go from the main line over to your house, but as far as these main lines, no we don t lower those. So that kind of took that off the plate too. There s also a line there for the cable television and they said they wouldn t lower it either so that kind of cuts our access from the street side. In closing, as far as our covenants to and this, several people have come to me and talked about this. I don t have a petition and I don t have a slide rule. The people who complained to me about it mostly were concerned about the height of it and the fact it was out in his front yard. Every other storage building in our subdivision is behind their fence and under 10-foot so that s where I took the lead on that. He also mentioned one thing about his wife talking to me this spring. She came out and had a conversation with me about building a storage shed out there. I said, it sounds good to me but she never gave me any dimensions. She said she was going to leave us plenty of room. Nothing was ever stated about how big the structure was going to be, where its location was going to be in proximity to the pump house. As a result it was all kind of a surprise when the thing went in, to me. REBUTTAL

5 Page 5 Scott Stewart With respect to Idaho Power, I have talked with them a couple of times and they will come out and drop the line and it would be at no cost to me or to our subdivision. That s what they stated. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Meyer I m having difficulty finding any kind of a hardship to approve this variance and quite honestly I m hearing some conflictive information. Based on what we went through last time I don t know if we would want to defer this and get some clarification. I for one would like to see something in writing from Idaho Power if they have in fact said they are willing to drop those lines. I would also like to see something resolved in terms of whether the Cable TV Company is willing to do the same. COMMISSIONER MEYER MOVED TO DENY CVA COMMISSIONER MILLER SECONDED THE MOTION. Commissioner Gibson I m going to vote in favor of the motion specifically because I don t believe the hardship has been proven without a reasonable doubt. I also think it s really incumbent upon the applicant to get the due diligence done. There are a lot of issues which go into building a structure of this nature, particular building over an easement and access to the water at the pump house. A lot of items to consider that should have been documented. This would have made it a little bit easier to prove the case of a variance relative to the nature of the property and I acknowledge the individual purchased the property nine years ago. It s important to say, yea, good job. The structure looks nice, the landscaping is beautiful but that doesn t negate the fact that it s does not comply with the findings for a variance application process. Commissioner Miller I would reiterate that. Just going back to the standard for the variance which doesn t ask us, is this a good project or not? It asks us, are there exceptional circumstances or hardships because the property warrants granting the variance from the generally applied rules of the City and I just don t see any here on this lot. For those reasons I will be voting to deny the application. Commissioner Bradbury I m going to toss out one more thing, I agree with Commissioner Miller. I m having difficulty making this circumstance fit the legal criteria, the legal standards that are contained in our Ordinance. As for some of the other circulating issues about the effects on utilities, I don t think these really apply to the analysis we re required to go through which is try to find some unique characteristic of the site demanded by the Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the Ordinance are varied. I m reminded a little bit of several occasions where we ve had, obviously a mistake has been made here and the source of the mistake as often happens seems to come from many different places. But I m reminded of those occasions when somebody shows up with a 7-foot fence in their backyard only to discover our Ordinance only allows a 6-foot fence.

6 Page 6 As much as we d might like to let them keep their 7-foot fence because it looks really good, it s nicely built and there s actually some reasons to have it, we have to tell them to take it down because it just doesn t meet the requirements of our Ordinance and I think this one fits that same type of pattern, as difficult as it is for all of us up here to come to that conclusion. ROLL CALL VOTE COMMISSIONER MEYER COMMISSIONER MILLER COMMISSIONER GIBSON COMMISSIONER BRADBURY ALL IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED, MOTION CARRIES.