Laserfiche WebLink
property owners (or their representatives) to proceed with an Administrative Subdivision to realign their common <br />boundary without creating any new buildable lots. <br />Applicant Proposal <br />The Applicant proposes to carve out about 2,100 square feet from the Subject Property (just around the existing <br />structural encroachments) that would ultimately be combined with the adjacent lot to the south. The size of the <br />Subject Property would be reduced to about 0.89 acres (a reduction of 0.05 acres) while the adjacent lot to the south <br />would increase to about 1.13 acres in size. This configuration would not impact the existing lot width at all. If this <br />were approved, the Variance would need to clearly state that the driveway encroachment would need to corrected <br />by a specified date (this would entail removal of existing asphalt and restoring with vegetation). The primary <br />downside to this approach is the resulting 'bump -out' of one parcel that may lead to encroachment issues for future <br />property owners. <br />Potential Modifications to Proposal <br />1. Adjust common lot line on all or a portion of the property, not just the area of encroachment. This approach <br />would result in a slightly more desirable lot line configuration and would also at least partially address the <br />driveway encroachment as well. However, it would result in a reduction in lot width of the Subject Property <br />from 100 feet to eighty (80) feet. Furthermore, the lot size of the Subject Property would be reduced by 3,100 <br />square feet. <br />2. Grant Variance to Side Yard Setback for existing deck. As currently depicted, the proposal is still deficient in <br />side yard setback for the existing deck. <br />3. Grant Variance to Driveway Setback. As currently depicted, the proposal is still deficient in side yard setback <br />for the existing driveway. <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 />The Applicant is seeking this variance to clear the title of the Subject Property so that it can be marketed as a <br />buildable residential lot, which is a permitted use in the underlying zoning district. The owner of the Subject <br />Property, Central Bank, was not responsible for installing any of the existing encroachments, which were the result <br />of actions taken by a previous owner(s) of the adjacent lot to the south. Central Bank is making a good faith effort <br />to correct the existing encroachments that it acquired after foreclosing on the Subject Property. The encroachments <br />have existed for somewhere between twenty-five (25) and forty-five (45) years and thus, approving a variance that <br />would allow an Administrative Subdivision to be processed, would have little or no impact on the essential <br />character of the neighborhood, especially compared to the alternative (removal of decks and a portion of the <br />adjacent home). <br />Alternatives <br />Alternative #1: Adopt Resolutions #16-01-005, #16-01-006, #16-01-007 and #16-01-008 approving a variance to <br />lot size and lot width standards as shown on the Subdivision Sketch for the property located at 14510 Bowers Dr <br />NW and a variance to side yard setbacks for the property at 14500 Bowers Dr NW. This would represent the <br />minimum variance necessary to address the structural encroachments. While this may create a less than desirable <br />lot configuration , a similar variance and administrative subdivision were previously approved within this same <br />subdivision. Furthermore, the owner of the Subject Property is not agreeable to further reducing the size/width of <br />the Subject Property more so than is necessary to address the existing encroachments. Staff is supportive of this <br />option and, as written, the proposed Variance includes a condition requiring the driveway encroachment be removed <br />and the area restored with vegetation no later than June 30, 2016. <br />Alternative #2: Adopt modified versions of Resolutions #16-01-005 and #16-01-006, approving a variance to lot <br />size and lot width standards but with an alternative lot configuration of adjusting the property line along the entire <br />side property line, not just the area of encroachment. While this appears to result in a more straight forward lot <br />