Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#16-3788 <br /> January 13,2016 <br /> Peye 7 of B <br /> The visual impact of the minimal side setback will primarily be to the immedlately adjacent <br /> property owner. As af this writing staff has not heard from the adjacent owner, but that owner <br /> has signed the Adjacent Owner Acknowledgement form (Exhlbit I). <br /> O�erslze Accessory Strueture Variances <br /> It is uncommon that the City would apprave variances to create an Oversize Accessory Structure <br /> by expanding an existing accessory structure, especially when the exlsting building is <br /> nonconforming in location and the iot is substandard in size. The existing structure comes <br /> nawhere near meeting the principal structure setbacks required of an OAS, and its �roposed <br /> footprint based on the code would require a !ot of at least 3 acres in area. The impacts of visual <br /> density in the neighbotfiood should be considerecf by the Planning Commission. <br /> Expansion of Non-Conforming Accessory 5tructure <br /> The ex[sting building is considered as a lawful nan-confarming residential accessory building, and <br /> per the pertinent code sections may be expanded only if the expansions comply with ail height, <br /> setback, and hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the zoning district. The setback <br /> requirements cannot be met, fience this variance request. Because the existing structure <br /> encroaches upon the lot line setback, the code intends that as part of the expansion the exis#ing <br /> structure be modifiecf sa that it becomes completely canfflrming with respect to setbacks. Again, <br /> this is not feasible unless the entire structure is relocated to some other location on the property. <br /> Impact on Sewage Ejector System Maintenance <br /> The existing accessory building was administratively approved for fnstallation of a toilet and sink <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 building which pumps to the house sewer system (connected to municipal sewer in the <br /> 1980s). The ejector tank was required to be located 10 feet from the back of the building. <br /> Hawever, the praposed co�ered porch encroaches over an edge of that tank, potentially making <br /> future maintenance of the ejecto� system more difficult. If the addition is constructed, the <br /> property owner should be required to�elocate the tank to meet the required 10' setback. <br /> Artalysis <br /> Whether the character of the neighborhood will change if the proposed c�vered deck is added to <br /> this existing structure as proposed, is a subjecti�e question for the Planning Commission to <br /> consider. The number anc4 magnitude of variances required for expans9on of this structure as <br /> praposed is unusual, anci there are very few if any o�ersize accessory structures in the Crystal Bay <br /> neighborhood. There is rrzinima! if any opportunity far screening the building from adjacent <br /> praperties if that is desired, although the need for screening is not �eadily apparent. Planning <br /> Cammission should review this application keeping in mind the requirements far granting <br /> variances, as well as considering the potential impacts on the neighboring adjacent property <br /> owners. <br /> Practical Di�culties Statement <br /> Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit Q, 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 />