Laserfiche WebLink
2005 are too grainy to determine definitively whether the driveway extension existed at that <br />time or not. <br />10. That the surface of the driveway extension consists of a landscape rock or gravel surface. <br />11. That the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District requires driveway surfaces to consist of either <br />asphalt or concrete. <br />12. That the required driveway setback is five (5) feet in the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District. <br />13. That there is a five (5) drainage and utility easement along the side lot line of the Subject <br />Property. <br />14. 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 />15. That there are no known drainage issues due to the driveway extension, which has existed <br />since at least 2006, and possibly dating back to 2004. <br />16. That the driveway extension is about one (1) foot from the boundary line of the Subject <br />Property, encroaching on both the required setback and the drainage and utility easement. <br />17. That to establish a level parking surface, the Applicant brought in fill and installed a small <br />retaining wall consisting of three (3) courses of landscape block, one of which is partially <br />below grade. Both the fill and retaining wall are within the drainage and utility easement. <br />18. That the owners of the adjacent property to the west have submitted a written comments <br />supporting the request for a variance. <br />19. 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 />20. 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 />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 economic circumstances alone do/do not create the practical difficulties. <br />23. That the plight is/is not due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property. <br />24. That the plight was/was not created by the Applicant. <br />25. That, if granted, the Variance will/will not alter locality's essential character. <br />RESOLUTION #15-11-270 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />