Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-25 PACKET 06.1. Planning Staff Report Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance Planning Case No. CUP2016-052 July 25, 2016 Proposal Matthew and Pamela Blaskowski have filed a variance application to allow a driveway expan- sion at 7325 Joliet Circle South to be two feet from the side property line instead of the required six-foot side yard setback for driveways in the R-4, Low Density Residential District. Location Map Site Plan Planning Staff Report – V2016-042 Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance July 25, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Site Orthophoto 1 Site Orthophoto 2 Planning Staff Report – V2016-042 Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance July 25, 2016 Page 3 of 7 The application was received on June 13, 2016. The application was deemed complete on June 13, 2016. The 60-day application review expires on August 12, 2016. The 120-day review extension date is October 11, 2016, if exercised. Planning Considerations Background In 2006, the applicant constructed a third stall addition onto the principal structure consistent with applicable ordinance setback criteria. The driveway to the new addition was never con- structed. The applicants’ site plan details the required six-foot setback delineation and the proposed two foot driveway location. The applicants’ submittal information points to the fact that there are similarly constructed drive- ways in the neighborhood. No negative impacts have been reported for these locations. The map below identifies these residences with orange stars. Surrounding Driveway Setback Deviations Planning Staff Report – V2016-042 Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance July 25, 2016 Page 4 of 7 Prior to 2005, driveways were permitted to be located within two feet of a side property line if they did not impede drainage. That may be the case with the lots identified above, as the plat for the applicants’ subdivision was recorded in 1992. Comprehensive Plan – Future Land Use Designation The future land use map in the City’s Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows this prop- erty to be guided Low Density Residential. The proposed request is consistent with that desig- nation. Zoning This parcel is currently zoned Low Density Residential (R-4). The proposed use is consistent with that zoning designation. Existing Site Conditions The site is a typical residential lot developed that was built in the early 1990’s with a principal structure and one detached accessory structure. Setbacks The proposed driveway expansion (red line) to be within two feet of the property line (blue line) would be a four foot deviation from the required six-foot setback (green line). The requested variance would need to be granted in order to construct the driveway addition as proposed. Architecture/Construction If the variance is granted, a building permit will be required for the construction of the driveway expansion. Utilities A concern was voiced to staff about the potential impact of the expanded driveway on the exist- ing utility boxes within the public right of way on in front of the applicant’s property. If the vari- Planning Staff Report – V2016-042 Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance July 25, 2016 Page 5 of 7 ance is granted, these utilities will need to be avoided. No additional public or private utilities were identified as being impacted by the proposed request. Parking The proposed use would provide for additional parking opportunities on the site, but the maxi- mum number of vehicles parked outdoors on the property would still be limited to four. Variance Ordinance Criteria With any variance request, the Planning Commission and City Council must look to the zoning ordinance for guidance and direction. Title 11-2-7: Variances, states that: A. Authority And Purpose: The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this title. D. Consideration By Planning Commission; Recommendation: Before authorization of any variances, the request therefor shall be referred to the planning commission, and for its recommendation to the city council for the granting of such variance from the strict application of the provisions of this title so as to relieve such practical difficulties to the degree considered reasonable without impairing the intent and purpose of this title and the comprehensive plan. The planning commission shall recommend such conditions related to the variance, regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed building, structure or use, as it may deem advisable. The planning commission shall make its recom- mendation within sixty (60) days after the request is referred to it, unless the applicant requests, in writing, that an extension of time for review be granted by the planning commission. The planning commission may recommend a variance from the strict application of the provision of this title, if they find that: 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. 5. That the conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 6. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. 7. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 8. That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent prop- erty, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The applicant’s response to the ordinance criteria is attached as well as several informational photographs. The City’s Technical Review Committee reviewed the request based on the ordi- nance criteria and supported the request. Traffic/Access The proposed use will not increase traffic in the neighborhood. Planning Staff Report – V2016-042 Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance July 25, 2016 Page 6 of 7 Pedestrian Access Not applicable with this application. Surface Water Management The proposed use is below the threshold of additional impervious surface that would require ad- ditional stormwater management improvements. Grant opportunities are available through the Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District for residents seeking to voluntarily im- prove water surface management practices on their sites. Tree Preservation No trees are proposed to be removed as a component of the request. Landscaping Not applicable with this application. Area Charges The payment of the required area charges for the parcel were satisfied with the platting of the property. Park Dedication The payment of the required park dedication requirement for the parcel was satisfied with the platting of the property. Public Hearing Notices The public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin and mailed to the 84 property owners who are within 500 feet of the property on July 13, 2016. Summary  The proposed use is compliant with the City’s Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan.  The proposed use is permitted under the current zoning classification for the property.  The proposed development is adequately served by public utilities.  There are similarly situated driveways in the surrounding neighborhood. Findings The findings of fact for recommendation of approval that were considered during the review were identified as follows: A. The pie-shaped configuration of the applicants’ lot creates a difficulty in meeting the required setback. B. Driveway construction at the required setback would make maneuvering in and out of the third- car garage stall difficult, especially during winter months when snowbanks are present. Planning Staff Report – V2016-042 Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance July 25, 2016 Page 7 of 7 C. Sight lines from the adjacent streets would not be hindered from the proposed use. D. Similar properties with similar driveway setbacks have not posed negative consequences on the neighborhood. E. The construction of an attached garage addition was permitted by ordinance, and access to this structure via a required hard surface drive is reasonable and more practical than driving on the grass. Recommendation If the listed findings of fact in favor of granting a variance are found to be accurate and reliable, the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council approve the variance request to allow a driveway expansion at 7325 Joliet Circle South to be two feet from the side property line instead of the required six-foot side yard setback for driveways in the R-4, Low Density Residen- tial District. 1. All applicable permits (i.e.; building, electrical, grading, right-of-way, mechanical, etc.) must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any con- struction activities. 2. The driveway expansion shall be hard surfaced with bituminous or concrete from the concrete apron to the principal structure 3. The drive shall be no closer than two feet to the side property line. 4. The driveway shall be tapered within the public right-of-way and shall be no closer than the existing distance at the fire hyrdrant location. 5. The maximum number of vehicles parked outdoors on the property is limited to four, per City Code Title 6-2-4. Prepared by: John M Burbank, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: Project Plan Applicants’ response to the variance ordinance criteria Applicants’ informational pictures