Laserfiche WebLink
8. That as part of the title exam, certain encroachments were identified on the Subject Property <br />including parts of a deck, home, and driveway and potentially a private well from the adjacent <br />property to the south. <br />9. That the home on the adjacent lot to the south of the Subject Property appears to have been <br />constructed in 1970 and includes a private well. <br />10. That the deck(s) on the adjacent lot to the south of the Subject Property appears to have been <br />in place since at least 1991, based on assessment information in the property file of said <br />adjacent lot. <br />11. That an asphalt driveway `turn -around' serving the adjacent property to the south also <br />encroaches on the Subject Property. <br />12. That prior to the foreclosure, the Subject Property was owned by the current owner of the <br />adjacent parcel to the south. <br />13. That to resolve these encroachments, the Applicant is proposing an Administrative <br />Subdivision to realign the common boundary between the Subject Property and the adjacent <br />parcel to the south, which is generally known as 14500 Bowers Dr. NW. <br />14. That an Administrative Subdivision would expand the lot size non -conformity on the Subject <br />Property. <br />15. That the Subject Property size would be reduced to approximately 0.89 acres with the <br />Administrative Subdivision. <br />16. That the Administrative Subdivision would realign the property line such that the home and <br />deck would no longer encroach on the Subject Property; the deck on the adjacent parcel to <br />the south would be seven (7) feet from the newly aligned lot boundary, which would require <br />a variance to the minimum side yard setback of ten (10) feet. <br />17. That the Administrative Subdivision would not address the driveway encroachment; <br />however, a condition of the variance would require the removal of said encroachment and <br />restoration of that area with vegetation. <br />18. That City Code Section 117-590 prohibits the Zoning Administrator from realigning lot lines <br />if doing so would circumvent other zoning regulations. <br />19. That City Code Section 117-57 (b) prohibits expansions of nonconformities without the <br />issuance of a variance. <br />20. That the encroachments on the Subject Property were not the result of the owner of the <br />Subject Property. <br />21. That economic circumstances alone do not create the practical difficulties. <br />RESOLUTION #16-01-005 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />