Laserfiche WebLink
The Applicant is proposing to construct the garage addition such that it is five (5) feet from the side lot line, which <br />is less than the required ten (10) foot setback. There is no drainage and utility easement along this property line and <br />the neighbor to the east that abuts this property has submitted a written comment stating that he is not opposed to <br />requested variance. <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 />An addition to an accessory building (or the construction of a detached accessory building) is a reasonable use of <br />the property, especially when considering the Subject Property is over an acre in size and only has a two (2) stall <br />garage. The Subject Property appears to provide drainage for a majority of the neighborhood and if that low area <br />were filled in, it would result in water pooling in other areas and potentially cause flooding damage to another <br />structure. While a variance would allow for a reduced setback, based on the wooded setting of the neighborhood <br />and the distance to the nearest adjacent homes, it does not appear that this would alter the essential character of the <br />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 #15-04-077 and #15-04-078 granting a variance to the minimum required side yard <br />setback. While the Subject Property is over an acre in size, there are limited options for adding an accessory <br />building based on existing setback requirements (from lot lines and septic systems), the fact that a large portion of <br />the Subject Property provides drainage for the neighborhood, and the position of the home (about 100 feet from the <br />front lot line). Additionally, the open area in the southeast corner of the lot, which could likely accommodate an <br />accessory building, would preferably be reserved to serve as an alternate site for the septic system should the <br />current system fail in the future. Staff supports this option. <br />Option 2: Do not approve the variance. This action would result in the Applicant modifying his plans to ensure that <br />the addition meets the minimum required setback of ten (10) feet and/or would result in the Applicant having to <br />construct a detached building in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property, eliminating that space from future <br />use for an alternate location for a septic system. The proposed addition (960 square feet) is not excessive for this <br />size property and on most one (1) acre sites could be easily accommodated (either as a detached building or an <br />addition to an attached garage); however, due to a combination of factors affiliated with the Subject Property, a <br />practical difficulty does appear to exist. 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 the variance. <br />Action: <br />Motion to adopt Resolutions #15-04-077 and #15-04-078 approving a variance to the minimum side yard setback <br />for an accessory building addition at 3520 170th Ave NW. <br />Attachments <br />Site Location Map <br />