Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council narrows accessory-structure setback changes after applicant’s case; ordinance passes 4–1
Summary
After extended debate about rear-yard setbacks and a 10% building-height deviation for structures where substantial construction occurred in good faith, the council approved an amendment to allow 3-foot setbacks adjacent to dedicated open space and a 10% deviation for height overages; a proposed 2:1 height-to-setback ratio was not adopted.
The Herriman City Council on Oct. 22 approved an amendment to the city code that reduces accessory-structure setbacks adjacent to dedicated open space to three feet and adds a 10% building-height deviation for instances where substantial construction has been undertaken in good faith; the council declined to adopt a broader 2:1 height-to-setback ratio.
Planner Michael presented a privately initiated petition concerning Lot 390 and explained the planning commission’s recommendation for approval with modifications. Michael showed the applicant’s site plan, described engineering constraints and a pre-engineered metal kit building approximately 36 feet deep by 38 feet wide with a low-pitched roof, and said the city's accessory-structure code includes an allowance for small deviations.
The applicant said a verbal miscommunication and the sequencing of the permit and delivery led to construction starting after a permit denial. The applicant said he believed a fire-rated wall would permit a five-foot setback; staff told the council the building ultimately sits three feet from dedicated open space and approximately five feet from one side yard, making it two feet out of compliance on the other side.
Council members debated whether the change would create a precedent, how the change balances property rights and neighbor impacts, and whether the phrase "substantial construction has been undertaken in good faith" is sufficiently objective. Council member Sherry said she disliked the phrasing "good faith" but supported a measurable 10% deviation limit. Council member Teddy was the lone vote against the adopted motion.
Sherry moved the ordinance with an amendment to require the open-space adjacency be "dedicated" and to include the 10% height-deviation provision; the council voted 4–1 in favor. The motion explicitly excluded the 2:1 ratio proposed by the applicant. Council directed staff to produce ordinance language reflecting the amendment.
The action changes the accessory-structure rules only where the structure abuts dedicated open space and establishes a limited enforcement tolerance for minor height overages when construction had progressed.
