Laserfiche WebLink
� F1LE#16-3799 <br /> January 13,2018 <br /> Pege 7 of$ <br /> The visual impact of the minimal side setback will primarily be to the immediately adjacent <br /> property owner. As of this writing staff has not heard from the adjacent owner, but #hat owner <br /> has signed the Adjacent Owner Acknowledgement form {Exhiblt 1). <br /> Oversize Accessory Structure Variances <br /> It is uncommon that the City would approve variances to create an Oversize Accessory Structure <br /> by expanding an existing accessory s#ructure, especially when the existing building is <br /> nonconforming in location and the lot is substandard in size. The existing structure comes <br /> nowhere near meeting the principal structure setbacks required of an OAS, and its proposed <br /> footprint based on the code would require a lot of at least 3 acres in area. The impacts of visual <br /> density in the neighborhoad should be considered by the Planning Commission. <br /> Expansian of Nan-Conforming Accessory Structure <br /> The existing building is considered as a lawful non-conforming residential accessary building, and <br /> per the pertinent code sectians may be expanded anly if the expansions comply with all height, <br /> setback, and hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the zoning district. The setback <br /> requirements cannot be met, hence this variance request. Because the existing structure <br /> encroaches upon the lot line setback, the code intends that as part of the expansion the existing <br /> structure be modified so that it becomes completely conforming with respect to setbacks. Again, <br /> this is not feasible unless the entire structure is relocated to some other location on the praperty. <br /> Impact on Sewage Ejector System Malntenance <br /> The existing accessory building was administratively approved for installation of a toile#and sPnk <br /> in 2010 and the owners executed the required covenants limiting the uses of the building (see <br /> Exhibit J}. An aspect of that approval was installation of a sewage ejector system directly behind <br /> the buifding which pumps to the house sewer system (connected to municipal sewer in the <br /> 1980s). The ejector tank was required to be located 10 fee# from the back af the building. <br /> However, the proposed covered porch encroaches over an edge of that tank, potentially making <br /> future rrtaintenance of the ejector system more difficult. If the addition is constructed, the <br /> property owner should be required to relocate the tank to meet the required 10'setback. <br /> Analysis <br /> Whether the character of the neighborhood will change if the proposed covered deck is added to <br /> this existing structure as proposed, is a subjective question for the Planning Commission to <br /> consider. The number and magnitude of variances required for expansion of this structure as <br /> proposed is unusuaf, and there are very few if any oversize accessary structures in the Crystal Bay <br /> neighborhood. There is minimal if any apportunity for screening the building from adjacent <br /> properties if that is desired, although the need for screening is not readily apparent. Planning <br /> Commission shoutd review this application keeping in mind the requirements for granting <br /> variances, as well as considering the potentia! impacts on the neighboring adjacent properly <br /> owners. <br /> Practical Difficufties Statement <br /> Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit D, and <br /> should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Neighbor Comments <br /> As of this writing the City has received no comments from neighboring property owners <br />