Laserfiche WebLink
of ten (10) feet. Thus, a variance to the minimum required setback for swimming pools is also being processed as <br />part of this request. <br />When contemplating a variance request, there is a three (3) factor test for practical difficulties that must be met by <br />the Applicant. The following are the three (3) factors: <br />1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner? <br />2. Is the landowner's problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner? <br />3. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? <br />Swimming pools are considered to be a reasonable accessory use of residential properties. Neither of the current fee <br />title owners of the two properties were responsible for the encroachment that exists and both parties are working to <br />resolve the matter in a reasonable manner. Both property owners, and likely the majority of the neighboring <br />property owners, had thought the property line between the two parcels was just beyond the privacy fence. That, <br />coupled with the fact that the request does not propose any new structures or uses, would result in no alteration to <br />the essential character of the locality. <br />As a reminder, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering variances rather than a <br />providing a recommendation. <br />Alternatives <br />Option 1: Adopt Resolutions #15-03-063 and #15-03-064 approving a variance to minimum lot size requirements in <br />the Critical River Overlay District and adopt Resolutions #15-03-065 and #115-03-066 approving a variance to <br />minimum setback standards for an existing in -ground swimming pool. The encroachment has existed now for <br />nearly thirty (30) years and was only recently discovered. Processing an Administrative Subdivision to realign the <br />common boundary between the two parcels is the most reasonable way to address this matter. In an attempt to limit <br />the increase in non -conformity (further reducing the size of 14235 Bowers Dr. NW), the proposed new lot line was <br />positioned just outside the fence, necessitating the need for a variance to pool setbacks as well. As this only impacts <br />these two parcels and the 'new' lot line will be located where both parties thought it was, Staff supports this option. <br />Option #2. Adopt Resolutions #15-03-063 and #15-03-064 only and require the proposed line be adjusted to <br />eliminate the need for the variance to pool setbacks. While this may be possible, it would even further reduce the <br />lot size of 14235 Bowers Dr. NW. Furthermore, the proposed lot line is positioned where both parties had believed <br />the boundary already existed. Staff does not support this option. <br />Option #3. Do not approve either variance. This action would result in the need to remove the in -ground swimming <br />pool and/or require the two property owners to execute some form of an agreement for the encroachment. The <br />former action would result in requiring the removal of a pool that has been in place since 1985. The latter would <br />likely lead to issues with home owners insurance policies and may be a red flag in the future if either property were <br />listed for sale. Staff does not support this option. <br />Funding Source: <br />All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility. <br />Recommendation: <br />Staff recommends approval of both variances. <br />Action: <br />Motion to adopt Resolutions #15-03-063 and #15-03-064 approving a variance to minimum lot size on the property <br />located at 14235 Bowers Dr. NW. <br />-and- <br />Motion to adopt Resolutions #15-03-065 and #15-03-066 approving a variance to pool setbacks on the property <br />