Laserfiche WebLink
. FILE�1�3799 <br /> February 11,2016 <br /> Pape 5 of B <br /> The visual impact of the minimal side setback will primarily be to the immediately adjacent <br /> property owner to the west. As af this writing staff has not heard fram the adjacent owner, but <br /> that owner has signed the Adjacent Owner Acknowledgement form. <br /> Expanslon of Non�onforming Accessory Structure <br /> The existing building is considered as a lawful non-conforming residential accessory building, and <br /> per the pertinent code sectians may be expended only if the expansions comp(y with all height, <br /> setback, and hardcover and lot co�erage requirements of the zoning district. The setback <br /> requirements canrrot be met, hence this variance request. Because the existing structure <br /> encroaches upon the fot line setback, the code intends that as part of the expansion the existing <br /> structure be modified so that it becomes cdmpletely conforrr�ing with respect to setbacks. Again, <br /> this is nat feasible unless the entlre structure is relocated to some other locatian on the property. <br /> Impact on Sewage Ejectar System Mairrtenanoe <br /> Tttie existing accessory building was administratively approved for instaliation of a toilet and sink <br /> in 2410 and the ow�ers executed the required covenants limiting the uses of the building. An <br /> aspect of that approvaf was installation of a sewage ejector system directly behind the building <br /> which pumps to the house sewer system (conne�ted to municipal sewer in the 1980s}. The <br /> ejector tank was required to be located 10 feet from the back of the building. The initially <br /> proposed covered porch wou{d fi�ave encroached o�er an edge of that tank, potentially making <br /> future maintenance of the ejector system more difficult. Building Official Roger Peitso has <br /> reviewed the �evised plan which results in a setback between the tank and the building of <br /> approximatety 4 feet. He has determined this will be acceptable far access to the tank, since it is <br /> functionally an ejector system and not a septic tank. <br /> Anaiysis <br /> Whether the character of the neighhorhood 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 /> cons9der. The smaller covered deck addition to the rear of the building combined with <br /> elimination of the side covered walkway will result in a structure that will be less imposing than <br /> the original proposai. The number and magnitude of variances required for expansion af this <br /> structure as revised is reducec! from the initial proposal. There is minimal if any opportunity for <br /> screening the building from adjacent properties if that is desired, although the need for screening <br /> is nat readily apparent. PEanning Commission shouEd review this applicatia� keeping in mind the <br /> requirements for granting variances, as well as consldering the patential impacts on the <br /> neighboring adjacent property owners. <br /> Practical Difficulties Statemertt <br /> Applicant has submitted a revised Practical Qifficuities Documentation Form attached as Exhibit <br /> C, and should be asked for additional testimany regardi�g the application. <br /> lssues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that #hat the property owner propases to use the <br /> property in a reasonable rr�anner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood? <br />