Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/28/2023

Home

current location of the driveway. The Applicant has prepared a draft of a Driveway Encroachment Agreement (attached to this case) that he and his neighbor would execute (and record against both properties) should the variance request be approved. The Applicant stated that there had previously been drainage issues on the Subject Property resulting in water in the basement. A previous owner of the Subject Property ended up creating a quasi -drainage basin in the rear yard to address the drainage problem. This ultimately limited options for placement of a detached accessory building and led to the building being installed at the minimum setback for an accessory building. The Applicant has stated that the driveway was installed around the detached accessory building to avoid the need to back up for long distances, creating a safer maneuvering process. Three Factor Test Per State Statute, a variance can be issued if zoning provisions result in practical difficulties for a property owner. This includes reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential character. • Reasonableness: A driveway providing access to a detached accessory building is not only reasonable but very typical in residential neighborhoods. • Uniqueness: The work done to address drainage issues on the Subject Property impacted the placement of the building, and by default, the location of the driveway. The fact that there is no drainage and utility easement along this property line does create a unique set of circumstances. • Essential Character: This neighborhood had previously been zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing), so the lots are larger and are all on private utilities, giving this neighborhood a more rural feel even though it is now in the MUSA and zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA) - 80. The driveway around the detached accessory building is not out of character at all in this neighborhood and due to the lot sizes, the general public would realistically never know that it encroaches onto the setback (or onto the neighboring property). Alternatives: Alternative 1: Recommend approval of the CUP for additional accessory building square footage and approve the variance to the driveway setback. The additional square footage is for a carport, essentially an extension of a roofline without walls. The overage is reasonable and actually less than many similar past applications. Based on the larger lot sizes, the fact that there is no drainage and utility easement along the property line, and the adjacent property owner has no objections to the driveway encroachment, the variance seems reasonable as well. Staff supports this alternative. Alternative 2: Recommend approval of the CUP for additional accessory building square footage and deny the variance to the driveway setback. The additional square footage is for a carport, essentially an extension of a roofline without walls. The overage is reasonable and actually less than many similar past applications. Again, there is no easement along this property line and, based on the size of the properties, this does not create any issue with snow storage. There is only one property impacted by this and that property owner has no objection to the driveway in its current location. Staff does not support this alternative. Alternative 3: Recommend denial of the CUP and deny the variance. The additional square footage is for a carport that essentially is just an extension of the existing roofline, is reasonable and actually less than other similar requests the City has reviewed and approved. The zero setback for the driveway does not impact any easement and the adjacent property owner does not object to it in its current location. Staff does not support this alternative. Funding Source: