1. Summit County Council
February 15, 2017

2. Iverson Accessory Building Appeal

5. Background Application received on June 29, 2016
Service Provider Review, Revisions, and Analysis
August 23, Snyderville Basin Planning Commission
Negative recommendation to the Community Development Director
August 26, Community Development Director
Consistent with the recommendation from the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission, denied the Low Impact Permit
September 2, Community Development Director’s decision appealed

6. Original Application Request:
Accessory Building has a gross floor area of 3,480 sq. ft.
Approximately 1,132 sq. ft. Accessory Dwelling unit
The applicant has stated the uses for the proposed Accessory Building are for;
Guest quarters
Storage of:
Boat
Wave runners
Utility terrain vehicle
Future tractor and tractor implements
Vehicle
Camper trailer
A future horse and chickens
Feed for animals
Yard tools

10. Key Discussion Points:
Does the property already have an Accessory Dwelling Unit?
Additional driveway to second access road.
Size of the proposed Accessory Building and Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Architecture of the proposed Accessory Building.

11. Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit (above garage)

12. Approx. 400’ distance
50’ elevation difference
Separate Driveway

13. FLOOR AREA: The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several stories of the building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of party walls. Included shall be any basement floor, interior balconies and mezzanines, elevator shafts, stairwells and enclosed porches. The floor area of accessory uses and of accessory buildings on the same lot shall be included.

14. Conversion into Bedroom
Potential and Easy
Conversion into Bedroom
Approximately 255 sq. ft.
Proposed Floor Area
Approximately 1,132 sq. ft. ?
Entrance corridor
Approximately 140 sq. ft.
Porch and Front Door

15. Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Summit County Council evaluate Staff’s analysis, review the information provided in the Staff Report, and vote to uphold the Community Development Director’s decision to deny the proposed Low Impact Permit as outlined in in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law (Exhibit F of the Staff Report).
Witness - Richard Angell