PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance Related to a Proposed Addition of a Carport to a Detached Accessory Building (Project No. 23-112); Case of Jay and Carol McDonald

The City has received applications from Jay and Carol McDonald (the "Applicant") for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a proposed addition to an existing building and the required driveway setback on the property located at 14275 Alpaca Street NW (the "Subject Property").

The Subject Property is just over three (3) acres in size and is located in the R-1 Residential (MUSA) - 80 district.  The properties to the south and west are also zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA) - 80, while the properties to the north and east are zoned B-2 Highway Business District.  There is an existing, detached accessory building on the Subject Property that is 2,700 square feet in size, which is the maximum size allowed based on the Subject Property's size per City Code Section 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings).  The Applicant is proposing to construct a fourteen foot by fifty foot (14' x 50') carport on the north side of the existing accessory building.  This would result in an overage of 700 square feet of detached accessory building space, which prompted the need for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

The Applicant has stated that the roof of the carport will begin at the peak of the accessory building's roof.  It will consist of the same material and color as the existing roof.  The proposed carport is intended to provide overhead shelter for a motorhome.  The carport will exceed all required setbacks from property lines and from the septic system and well (while the Subject Property is zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA) - 80, this entire neighborhood is still on private utilities).

The original application was only for a CUP to address additional detached accessory building square footage.  However, as Staff began reviewing the request, it became clear that an existing driveway serving the Subject Property not only encroached on the required five (5) foot setback from a side property line, but also encroached onto the neighboring property to the south.  This prompted the Applicant to submit another land use application seeking a variance to the driveway setback standard.  This encroachment is not readily visible to the general public and has no impact on any other properties other than the Subject Property and the adjacent property owner.

The driveway setback serves multiple purposes.  First, in general, it keeps impervious surfacing out of drainage and utlity easements.  Secondly, it provides some space for snow storage without impacting neighboring properties.  There are no drainage and utility easements along the southern lot line of the Subject Property (or the northern boundary of the adjacent parcel).  Secondly, as these are acreage lots (minimum of 2.5 acres in size), there is no impact related to snow storage.  The Applicant stated he has spoken with the adjacent 'impacted' property owner about the driveway encroachment and that the adjacent property owner has no objection to the 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.

 


 

All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility.

Staff recommends approval of both the CUP and variance requests.

Motion to recommend City Council adopt Resolution #23-239 approving a Conditional Use Permit for 700 square feet of accessory building space to allow the addition of a carport on the north side of the existing detached accessory building.

-and-

Motion to adopt Resolution #23-240 granting a variance to the driveway setback on the Subject Property.