Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

The owners of the parcel to the west, directly adjacent to the driveway extension have submitted written comments supporting the variance. 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 and not caused by the landowner? 3. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? Is the Property Owner prosing to use the Property in a reasonable manner? A driveway extension is a common and reasonable occurrence on a residential parcel. Earlier this year, during the review of Ordinance #15-08, which established a standard setback for off-street parking, Staff acknowledged that while it would simplify enforcement of off-street parking standards, it would not necessarily correct or address the common issue of parking either equipment or a vehicle alongside a garage. The request this evening is an example of that issue. Is the plight/concern of the Owner due to circumstances unique to the Property not caused by the Property Owner? It is fairly common to have a sloped grade (albeit a minor slope) along a common side lot line to direct drainage either to the street or to a drainage swale in the rear yard. It is also fairly common to park equipment and/or vehicles alongside a garage. In this instance, there simply isn't sufficient space to create a level parking surface in this location and maintain the required five (5) foot setback. If granted, will the Variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The driveway extension has existed for about ten (10) years and hasn't drawn any attention or concern until just recently. The area is well maintained and nicely landscaped. It does not appear that the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered if the variance were granted. As a reminder, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering variances rather than a providing a recommendation. Alternatives Option 1: Approve Resolutions #15-11-270 and #15-11-271 granting a variance to the standard driveway setback, contingent upon upgrading the surface to comply with Section 117-111 (R-1 Residential District) and upon entering into an Easement Encroachment Agreement with the City. The driveway extension has been in place for about ten (10) years and there have been no known concerns related to drainage or aesthetics. The Applicant has stated that if the Variance were granted, they would upgrade the surface to comply with the surfacing requirement. Additionally, the Engineering Division has stated that it does not appear that the driveway extension is impacting or will negatively impact the purpose of the Easement. Option 2: Approve modified versions of Resolutions #15-11-270 and #15-11-271 granting a variance to the standard driveway setback, contingent upon the fill and retaining wall being removed and replaced with an at -grade asphalt or concrete surface and upon entering into an Easement Encroachment Agreement. While Staff would not necessarily oppose this option, the Applicant has stated that the reason for the fill and retaining wall was to create a level parking surface. Also, if the existing driveway extension is not negatively impacting the purpose of the Easement, this option doesn't appear to accomplish anything more than Option 1. Option 3: Deny the request for a variance to the driveway setback standard. It does appear that there may be an alternative option for parking/storing the trailer in the side or rear yard of the Subject Property. There is a level area behind the garage and alongside the home where a concrete or asphalt surface could be installed. However, the