Laserfiche WebLink
11. That in 2003, the driveway setback was amended to a minimum of five (5) feet from a side <br />lot line. <br />12. That the Applicant is proposing to install the second driveway (concrete surface) up to the <br />side lot line and it would terminate at the front wall of the attached garage. <br />13. That the minimum setback for driveways on properties within the R-1 Residential District is <br />five (5) feet. <br />14. That the Applicant does not intend to install concrete along the side of the garage but does <br />intend to continue using the gravel surface, which abuts the side lot line, to park an RV. <br />15. That Ordinance #15-08, which was just recently adopted, specifies that motor vehicles and <br />equipment parked in the side yard of a property shall maintain a five (5) foot setback from <br />the edge of required surfacing to property boundary. <br />16. That as Ordinance #15-08 was developed and reviewed, it was acknowledged that it would <br />not resolve a common issue, which is the desire of many property owners to park a motor <br />vehicle and/or a piece of equipment along the side of a garage if that garage were constructed <br />to the minimum required setback. <br />17. That the proposed new concrete driveway extends closer to the side lot line than nearer <br />Tungsten St than the gravel surface did. <br />18. That there is also a ten (10) foot drainage and utility easement along this side lot line. <br />19. That there is no infrastructure related to stormwater within this easement area and it does not <br />appear to contain other small utilities either. <br />20. That land directly adjacent to the Subject Property is slightly higher which eliminates the <br />concern of drainage being diverted onto the neighboring property. <br />21. That to encroach into a drainage and utility easement with a driveway would require an <br />Encroachment Agreement being executed between the Applicant and the City. <br />22. That the Applicant has written that the driveway would also serve as a method of reaching a <br />septic system. <br />23. That it appears that sufficient access to the septic system for maintenance purposes exists as <br />there are multiple septic pumping records in the property file. <br />24. That economic circumstances alone do/do not create the practical difficulties. <br />25. That the plight is/is not due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property. <br />26. That the plight was/was not created by the Applicant. <br />27. That, if granted, the Variance will/will not alter locality's essential character. <br />RESOLUTION #15-07-164 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />