Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2014

Home

When contemplating a variance request, there is a three (3) factor test for practical difficulties that must be met by the Applicant. The following are the three (3) factors: 1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner? 2. Is the landowner's problem due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner? 3. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? The variance request appears to satisfy Factors 1 and 3. Using a driveway to access a detached garage is allowed in the R-1 Residential District and is therefore a reasonable use. The Subject Property is on a cul-de-sac, and like many cul-de-sac lots, is pie -shaped with narrower road frontage than a standard lot. In cul-de-sacs, at least a portion of driveways are typically near the side property line and thus, the three (3) foot encroachment would have little to no effect on the essential character of the neighborhood. In consideration of Factor 2, there is nothing inherent to the physical landscape of the Subject Property that is creating the plight that the variance would remedy. However, one could argue that, if a detached accessory building were permitted to be constructed on a property that there would be a reasonable expectation to be able to access the building via a driveway. Alternatives Option #1: Approve Resolutions #14-06-099 and #14-06-100 granting a variance to the minimum required driveway setback. The Applicant has discussed the potential location of the driveway with the adjacent neighbor most likely to be impacted should the Variance be approved and has received written statement of support from that property owner for the encroachment. The Applicant is aware that an Encroachment Agreement, to be recorded against the Subject Property, outlining responsibilities for potential removal of the encroachment if necessary for routine and/or emergency work within the easement will be required. The Encroachment Agreement will also stipulate that the owner of the Subject Property shall maintain both positive drainage and existing grades at the common property line. With these provisions in place, Staff supports this option. Option #2: Approve an amended version of Resolutions #14-06-099 and #14-06-100. This option would be based on discussion and could result in a lesser deviation from the required setback. Option #3: Deny the request for a Variance. This action would require that any extension of the existing driveway would have to maintain the minimum required setback of five (5) feet from the side property line. Staff believes that the driveway extension is a reasonable use of the Subject Property and that it will eliminate a lawful non -conforming situation (detached accessory building without a driveway). Furthermore, only a portion of the driveway extension would encroach on the required setback, not the entire length of the extension. Finally, the property owner immediately adjacent to the proposed extension has already provide written support for the Applicant's request and thus, Staff does not support this option. As a reminder, for variances, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity rather than an advisory board. Funding Source: All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility. Recommendation: City Staff recommends approving Resolutions #14-06-099 and #14-06-100 related to a request for a variance to the setback requirement for driveways. Action: Motion to adopt Resolution #14-06-099 approving Findings of Fact #0927 related to a request for a variance to the driveway setback requirement; -and- Motion to adopt Resolution #14-06-100 approving the request for a variance.