Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07I Driveway Setback Variance at 7325 Joliet Circle South City Council Action Request Form Meeting Date 8/10/2016 Department Community Development Agenda Category Consent Agenda Title Driveway Setback Variance at 7325 Joliet Circle South Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 2016-XXX approving the variance 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 Residential District. Budget Implication N/A Attachments Council Memo Resolution No. 2016-XXX Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt from 7/25/16 meeting Exhibits TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Charlene Stevens, City Administrator FROM: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner DATE: August 10, 2016 RE: Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance Proposal Matthew and Pamela Blaskowski have filed a variance application 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 Residential District. Location Map Site Plan Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance – Planning Case V2016-052 August 10, 2016 Page 2 of 8 Site Orthophoto 1 Site Orthophoto 2 Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance – Planning Case V2016-052 August 10, 2016 Page 3 of 8 Review Process 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 Planning Commission The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their meeting on July 25, 2016. The public hearing was opened for public testimony and no comments were received. An excerpt from the meeting minutes for that agenda item are attached. After discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the variance based on the established findings, subject to conditions. 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 constructed. 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 Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance – Planning Case V2016-052 August 10, 2016 Page 4 of 8 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 property to be guided Low Density Residential. The proposed request is consistent with that designation. 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 var- iance 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. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance – Planning Case V2016-052 August 10, 2016 Page 5 of 8 Utilities A concern was voiced to staff about the potential impact of the expanded driveway on the existing utility boxes in front of the applicant’s property along the proposed driveway and the fire hydrant located within the public right of way on. If the variance is granted, these utilities will need to be avoided. No additional public or private utilities were identified as being impacted by the proposed request. During the Planning Commission meeting, the required setback distance (Condition #4) between the applicants’ proposed driveway and the existing fire hydrant was clarified to be no closer than five feet. The detail below identifies the preferred drive layout within the public right- of-way and maintaining a five-foot separation. Setback Flare Detail Parking The proposed use would provide for additional parking opportunities on the site, but the maximum 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. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance – Planning Case V2016-052 August 10, 2016 Page 6 of 8 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 con- ditions related to the variance, regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed build- ing, structure or use, as it may deem advisable. The planning commission shall make its recommendation 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 property, 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. 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. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance – Planning Case V2016-052 August 10, 2016 Page 7 of 8 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. 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. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Blaskowski Driveway Setback Variance – Planning Case V2016-052 August 10, 2016 Page 8 of 8 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 The Planning Commission recommended 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 Residential District, subject to the conditions found in the attached draft resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-XXX A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO DRIVEWAY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AT 7325 JOLIET CIRCLE SOUTH WHEREAS, Matthew and Pamela Blaskowski applied for a variance to allow a driveway 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, on property legally described below. Lot 10, Block 2, East Parkview Second Addition, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. Commonly known as 7325 Joliet Circle South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their meeting on July 25, 2016; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report which detailed specific information about the property and the variance application was prepared and presented; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance criteria and findings of facts established by the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance; and WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony and no public testimony was received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously (7-to-0 vote) recommended to the City Council that the variance be granted based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Staff Report. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby grants a variance to allow a driveway 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, on property legally described above. Granting this variance is based upon the following findings of fact: 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. C. Sight lines from the adjacent streets would not be hindered from the proposed use. Resolution No. 2016-XXX Page 2 of 2 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the recommendation for approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 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 construction 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 five feet to the fire hydrant. 5. The maximum number of vehicles parked outdoors on the property is limited to four, per City Code Title 6-2-4. Passed this 10th day of July 2016. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Joe Fischbach, City Clerk EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE JULY 25, 2016, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6.1 Blaskowski Driveway Addition – Case V2016-052 Matthew and Pamela Blaskowski have applied for a variance to allow a driveway 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. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Brittain asked for clarification on the distance from the fire hydrant. Burbank responded that within the public right-of-way it can’t be any closer than five feet to the fire hydrant. Brittain noted that most of the other driveways in the neighborhood that were highlighted tapered down to a two-car width curb cut. Burbank responded that this driveway would also do that. Matthew Blaskowski, 7325 Joliet Circle South, stated that he does not agree with Condition #4 regarding the requirement that it be tapered within the public right-of-way and shall be no closer than the existing distance at the fire hydrant location. He noted that the driveway is currently about seven to eight feet away from the hydrant. He would like to get closer than five feet if possible. He showed photographs of some neighborhood fire hydrants and their distances to driveways. He stated that his driveway would be no wider than 23 feet at the curb. Brittain highlighted in the findings of fact that the first one about “the pie-shaped configuration creates difficulty meeting the required setback” noting that typically he does not believe the shape of the lot would be a finding of fact. However, he sees this as slightly different because these lots were platted in the 1990s when a two-foot setback was allowed. He suggested clarifying Finding of Fact A to add verbiage that the pie-shape was contributed to by the ordinance at the time the plat was approved. He does not want to set a precedent that just because somebody owns pie-shaped lot on a cul-de-sac that there is justification for a variance. He stated that he is in favor of the variance as stated in the application. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Fox asked if the garage addition was built without a driveway and if the garage meets the setback requirements. Burbank responded yes. Graf made a motion to approve the variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Graff seconded. Fox asked about the hydrant setback. Burbank clarified that the condition should say a minimum of five feet. Graf noted that the current driveway is about six feet from the hydrant so the five-foot setback would add an additional foot to the new driveway. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote).