CC PACKET 11092021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 9, 2020 Page 5 portion of the patio that extends along the side lot line and is more than 3 feet from the rear wall of the garage. The first 3 feet would be considered consistent with the sidewalk connection to the front driveway area. Again applying the variance criteria of reasonable use and unique conditions, staff does not believe that the test is met for the patio space. While accessibility issues can be addressed by a 3 foot walk, the patio beyond that point is not required for wheelchair access. The patio could be expanded farther into the rear yard while maintaining the 5 foot setback (notwithstanding the impervious issues addressed below), so square footage and usability is not at issue for this aspect of the project. As such, staff finds that there are no unique conditions that require a patio setback encroachment to make reasonable use of this property. Staff recommends denial of the patio setback encroachment, recommending instead that the portion of the patio area more than 3 feet beyond the rear garage wall (to account for accessible sidewalk access) be removed to a setback of at least 5 feet. 3. Shed Setback. The replacement shed sits in the northwest corner of the lot, with little if any setbacks from either the west or north property lines. The required setback for such structures is 5 feet from both side and rear lot lines. The applicant notes that prior to construction of this shed, another accessory shed occupied the corner of the lot, but with a dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet. That shed was in a state of disrepair and required replacement. The zoning ordinance permits the replacement on non-conformities under specific timing and other provisions, but with the requirement that no expansion of the non - conformity is permitted. Thus, a replacement shed could have been placed in the same location, with the same zero setback and same 10’ by 10’ dimension. In this case, the applicant’s replacement structure was expanded to 10 feet by 20 feet, resulting in new encroachments into the required 5 foot setback along the rear property line. Evaluating the shed setback variance according to the variance criteria noted above, staff believes that the criteria are not met by the request. There is ample space on the property to locate the expanded building away from the property lines to meet the required setback. In the alternative, the applicant has the ability to continue the non - conformity with a 10’ by 10’ building replacement. There are no apparent unique aspects of this parcel that suggest reasonable use consists of an expanded setback violation. As such, staff recommends denial of the variance. The applicant’s options in event of a denial are to remove a portion of the shed to return to the 10’ by 10’ sized building on the property line, or relocate the existing structure to meet the 5 foot setback requirement along both property lines. 4. Impervious Surface. With the improvements now in place, the applicant has expanded impervious surfaces on the property through the driveway expansions, the patio, and the larger shed. The standard for lots of As noted above, it appears (based on staff’s calculations from aerial photography) that the applicant exceeds the allowable