Laserfiche WebLink
front to the rear (approximately 18 feet of vertical difference). Furthermore, the Applicant has stated that the soil <br />in the rear yard consists of clay and gets very soft/soupy when wet, and they are concerned that vehicles would <br />get stuck. Finally, power for the detached accessory building is already in place adjacent to where the former <br />accessory building was located. <br />Three (3) Factor Test <br />• Reasonableness: It is very common for a property owner to construct a detached accessory building to <br />provide internal storage of vehicles, equipment, etc. All aspects of the proposed accessory building, with <br />the exception of the height, comply with zoning code standards. <br />• Uniqueness: The Applicant is attempting to beautify their property. This started with removing the <br />dilapidated garage. However, before they had their finances in place to construct a replacement building, <br />the City rewrote its Zoning Code and implemented a new standard that restricts the height of detached <br />accessory buildings in the front or side yard to no more than twenty-four (24) feet or the height of the <br />principal structure, whichever is less. There is also a significant grade change from the proposed location <br />of the accessory building to the rear yard. Additionally, the soil in the rear yard, where it is flatter, consists <br />of clay and the Applicant has stated their concerns with getting vehicles and equipment stuck in wet <br />conditions. <br />• Essential Character: A number of surrounding properties also have detached accessory buildings, both <br />larger and smaller than what is proposed. The proposed detached accessory building would comply with <br />all required setbacks and will have ane exterior finish that will resemble the home (beige siding and green <br />fascia and eaves). The building should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. <br />Alternatives: <br />1. Approve a variance to allow the height of a detached accessory building in the side yard to be taller than the <br />principal structure. When the former garage was removed, the Zoning Code would have allowed the proposed <br />building to be constructed in the same location without the need for a variance. The new building would provide <br />ample space for the Applicant to move vehicles and equipment inside and out of view from the public traveling <br />along Saint Francis Boulevard. There is a significant grade difference leading to the rear yard and there are less <br />desirable soils back there as well. Staff supports this alternative. <br />2. Do not approve the variance request. Should the variance be denied, the Applicant would have to find an <br />alternative location, presumably in the rear yard (to avoid their septic system and removal of multiple, significant <br />trees) and once again pay to have power buried underground down to the alternative building site (something they <br />had done prior to having to remove the former accessory building). Staff does not support this alternative. <br />Funding Source: <br />The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with this request. <br />Recommendation: <br />Staff recommends adopting Resolution #24-284, granting a variance to height restrictions for a detached <br />accessory building in the side yard of the Subject Property. <br />Outcome/Action: <br />Motion to adopt Resolution #24-284 granting a variance to height restrictions for a detached accessory building in <br />the side yard of the Subject Property. <br />Attachments <br />Site Location Map <br />Applicant Narrative <br />Accessory Building Plans <br />