CVA15-00016 Robert and Renate Bearden Summary Variance to reduce the rear yard setback for a carport located along the alley at 1811 S. Pacific Street in an R-1C (Single Family Residential) zone. Prepared By Ted Vanegas, Associate Planner Recommendation Denial of CVA15-00016 Reason for the Decision There is no exceptional circumstance or hardship associated with the subject property. The site is a standard sized lot for the R-1C zone. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan promote infill and redevelopment within established neighborhoods that has similar massing and form to ensure the development is compatible with surrounding neighborhood. (Principle IDP- N.2). Requiring a 9-foot, rear yard setback for an accessory structure between 120 and 500 square feet is consistent with much of the surrounding neighborhood and may reduce visual impacts on adjacent homes (Principle IDP- N.1).
7
http://ch-gispub3/geocortex/essentials/rest/tempfiles/export.jpg?guid=3e038dce-fe71-4... Page 1 of 1 5/8/2015 7
Planning Division Project Report File Number Applicant Property Address CVA15-00016 Robert and Renate Bearden 1811 S. Pacific Public Hearing Date June 8, 2015 Heard by Planning and Zoning Commission Analyst: Checked By: Ted Vanegas Cody Riddle Public Notification Neighborhood meeting conducted: April 27, 2015 Newspaper notification published on: May 23, 2015 Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: May 22, 2015 Staff posted notice on site on: May 14, 2015 Table of Contents 1. Project Data and Facts 2 2. Land Use 2 3. Project Proposal 3 4. Zoning Ordinance 3 5. Comprehensive Plan 3 6. Analysis/Findings 4 Exhibits Agency Comments Neighborhood Association Letter Neighborhood Signature Sheet
CVA15-00016 Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission / June 8, 2015 Page 2 of 6 7 1. Project Data and Facts Project Data Applicant/Status Robert and Renate Bearden / Owner Architect/Representative N/A Location of Property 1811 S. Pacific Size of Property ± 0.17 Acres Zoning R-1C (Single Family Residential) Comprehensive Plan Designation Compact Planning Area Central Bench Neighborhood Association/Contact Vista / Dave Kangas: 208-841-0580 Procedure Planning and Zoning Commission decision that can be appealed to City Council. Current Land Use and Site Characteristics The property contains a single-family house, a two-car garage and a carport. Description of Applicant s Request The proposal is for an existing detached carport structure to encroach into the rear yard setback. 2. Land Use Description and Character of Surrounding Area The area surrounding the property is an established single-family residential neighborhood. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning North: Single Family Residential / R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic Overlay) South: Single Family Residential / R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic Overlay) East: Single Family Residential / R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic Overlay) West: Single Family Residential / R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic Overlay) Special Considerations None History of Previous Actions None
CVA15-00016 Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission / June 8, 2015 Page 3 of 6 7 3. Project Proposal Setbacks Yard Required Existing Side (south) 3 35 Side (north) 3 3 Rear (west) 0 * 0 *A carport or garage is allowed a 0 rear yard setback if access is taken from an alley and a minimum of 22 of backup space is available. In this case the existing carport has a 0 rear yard setback, however only 14 feet of backup space in the alley is available. Structure(s) Design Number and Proposed Use of Buildings The subject property contains a single-family house, detached single car garage and carport. Building Height 11 Number of Stories One story. 4. Zoning Ordinance Section Description 11-04-03.01 General Purposes of Residential Districts 11-04-03.03 Exceptions to Setback Standards 11-03-04.14 Specific Procedures Variances 11-06-07.03 General Standard for Accessory Uses 5. Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER CHAPTER 3-COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES Principles IDP-N.1 Principles IDP-N.2 Infill Design Principles for Neighborhoods (IDP-N)
CVA15-00016 Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission / June 8, 2015 Page 4 of 6 7 6. Analysis/Findings The subject property is zoned R-1C (Single Family Residential) and contains a single-family residence, a two-car garage and the carport in question. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance for the 400 square foot detached carport to encroach into the rear yard setback. The carport is an existing structure that the applicant constructed without prior understanding of the City s permitting or setback requirements (Figure 1). On April 13, 2015, City Code enforcement responded to a complaint concerning the structure and at that time issued a violation for encroachment into the rear setback. Figure 1
CVA15-00016 Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission / June 8, 2015 Page 5 of 6 7 Typically a carport of this size would be allowed to locate on the rear property line as long as access occurred from an alley and there was sufficient backup space (22 ). In this case alley access is available; however the alley is only fourteen feet wide, requiring the carport to be setback an additional eight feet from the rear property line. If the carport were moved back eight feet there would then only be two feet of separation from the existing two-car garage. With less than six feet of separation from other structures City Code requires that typical setbacks for the zone be met, which in this case would be fifteen feet from the rear property line. Options available to the applicant are to either move the structure to the southern portion of the property so that it meets the eight foot setback and does not encroach within six feet of another structure, or leave the carport in its current location but establish it as a side loading structure. However as a side loading structure there would still need to be 22 feet of backup space to the side of property that vehicles load from. The applicant claims there is extensive landscaping on the property that would be destroyed if he were forced to move the structure or establish the southern yard area as backup space. Though this portion (northern) of the alley is technically public it does not appear to be a functioning alley, and terminates with fencing and landscaping at the southern edge of the applicant s property. No other properties adjacent to the subject property appear to take access from the alley. The applicant claims he is the only resident who uses and maintains this portion of the alley. Though there is no through connection, the opposite end of the alley (southern portion) does function as a typical public alley with a number of properties taking access (Figure 2.) Figure 2
CVA15-00016 Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission / June 8, 2015 Page 6 of 6 7 The Planning Team has received a letter from the Vista Neighborhood Association stating that, though they do not consider the carport intrusive, they cannot support the variance request because the applicant did not follow City procedures in construction of the structure. With a length of 125 feet and width of sixty feet the subject parcel meets the minimum dimensional requirements for the R-1C zone, and though there are a couple of structures in the vicinity that abut the alley, the Planning Team cannot find a special circumstance or hardship associated with the property that would justify a variance. FINDINGS Section 11-03-04.14 C (7) (b) Approval Criteria A variance may be granted when it is found that: i. That there is either a hardship associated with the property itself or an exceptional circumstance relating to the intended use of the property that is not generally applicable in the district. The planning team cannot identify an exceptional circumstance or hardship associated with the subject property. It is a standard interior lot that complies with the dimensional standards (e.g. size and width) for the R-1C zone. It is approximately 7,500 square foot in size and 60 feet wide. The lot is large enough for the carport to be located so that it meets the setback requirements of the zone. ii. That the granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and will not effect a change in zoning. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan promote infill and redevelopment within established neighborhoods that has similar massing and form to ensure the development is compatible with surrounding neighborhood. Though there are several structures abutting the alley, requiring setbacks from the alley is consistent with the much of the surrounding neighborhood (Principle IDP-N.2). If approved, this variance request will not effect a change in zoning. iii. Granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of other property owners, or the quiet enjoyment thereof. The reduced building setback may adversely impact adjacent properties and neighborhood character due to the lack of separation between the structure and residences adjacent to the subject property.
From: To: Subject: Date: Suezann Yorita Ted Vanegas FW: CVA15-00016 Variance transmittal Friday, May 01, 2015 1:05:15 PM 7 From: Dave Kangas [mailto:davekangas@msn.com] Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 12:34 PM To: David Moser; PDSTransmittals Subject: RE: CVA15-00016 Variance transmittal David, I was unable to attend the neighborhood meeting as planned. I have had conversations with Dena Gambrel, Julie Hulvey and Ron Bearden about this issue. I also drove over the to site and walked the alley fence line to get a feel for what it is. The VNA does not support variances, except in very rare circumstances. In this situation the homeowner did not follow proper procedures and obtain the necessary permits. We do not have proof of a conversation with code enforcement and find it hard to believe that he did not believe he would need a permit. A permit is needed in so many circumstances including storage sheds, fences, roofs. If the home owner is claiming a hardship, that hardship amounts to loss of some yard area, shrubs and pouring some extra concrete(imo) to properly relocate the structure. In fact, it appears that the placement and size of the structure was specifically chosen to avoid disruption of his yard and landscaping. In cases like these we cannot take side but look at the facts. He did not obtain necessary permits. and code guidelines. On a side note, the aluminum carport cover is unobtrusive. As it backs up to a little used alley I do not see significant impact from this structure. It is tan in color- very muted and only rises above the fence line by maybe 2 feet. This home owners current detached garage is more visible than this carport. Unfortunately, the home owner did not take into consideration or seem to care what his neighbor thought about this before proceeding. Julie Hulvey is the one who has to look at it each day. Again, we do not support this variance. If the homeowner wishes to keep it, we feel it is appropriate to follow the appropriate set backs and relocate the structure. Dave Kangas President Vista Neighborhood Association 208-841-0580 From: KCollins@cityofboise.org To: KCollins@cityofboise.org
Subject: CVA15-00016 Variance transmittal Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:14:33 +0000 7 Attached is a Boise City Planning & Development Services application for your review. Please e-mail comments back to PDSTransmittals@cityofboise.org. If you would like access to better resolution drawing (i.e. site and landscape drawings) they should be available on line here: http://pdsonline.cityofboise.org/pdsonline/permits.aspx?id=0 by using the case number (i.e. DRH14-00021 or CUP14-00045 or whichever number is in the subject heading of this e-mail) within a couple of days of receiving this e-mail. If you have questions or problems accessing this information please let me know. Kathleen Collins PDS Noticing/ GIS Analyst Planning & Development Services CITY OF BOISE Phone # - 208/344-3948 E-Mail - kcollins@cityofboise.org