#15-07-164 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

11. That in 2003, the driveway setback was amended to a minimum of five (5) feet from a side lot line. 12. That the Applicant is proposing to install the second driveway (concrete surface) up to the side lot line and it would terminate at the front wall of the attached garage. 13. That the minimum setback for driveways on properties within the R-1 Residential District is five (5) feet. 14. That the Applicant does not intend to install concrete along the side of the garage but does intend to continue using the gravel surface, which abuts the side lot line, to park an RV. 15. That Ordinance #15-08, which was just recently adopted, specifies that motor vehicles and equipment parked in the side yard of a property shall maintain a five (5) foot setback from the edge of required surfacing to property boundary. 16. That as Ordinance #15-08 was developed and reviewed, it was acknowledged that it would not resolve a common issue, which is the desire of many property owners to park a motor vehicle and/or a piece of equipment along the side of a garage if that garage were constructed to the minimum required setback. 17. That the proposed new concrete driveway extends closer to the side lot line than nearer Tungsten St than the gravel surface did. 18. That there is also a ten(10) foot drainage and utility easement along this side lot line. 19. That there is no infrastructure related to stormwater within this easement area and it does not appear to contain other small utilities either. 20. That land directly adjacent to the Subject Property is slightly higher which eliminates the concern of drainage being diverted onto the neighboring property. 21. That to encroach into a drainage and utility easement with a driveway would require an Encroachment Agreement being executed between the Applicant and the City. 22. That the Applicant has written that the driveway would also serve as a method of reaching a septic system. 23. That it appears that sufficient access to the septic system for maintenance purposes exists as there are multiple septic pumping records in the property file. 24. That economic circumstances alone do not create the practical difficulties. 25. That the plight is not due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property. 26. That the plight was not created by the Applicant. 27. That, if granted, the Variance will not alter locality's essential character. RESOLUTION #15-07-164 Page 2 of 4