PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for a Variance to the Driveway Setback Requirement on the Property Located at 5581 148th Lane NW

Through the Code Enforcement Program, the City became aware of an existing driveway extension that encroaches into the required five (5) foot driveway setback on the property located at 5581 148th Lane NW (the "Subject Property").  Upon receiving a Notice of Violation from the City, Douglas and Vicky Foyt (the "Applicant") submitted an application for a variance to deviate from the standard driveway setback.

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within a 350 foot radius of the Property of the Public Hearing via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also published in the City's official newsletter, the Anoka County Union Herald.

The Subject Property is zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA) and is approximately 0.25 acres in size.  The Subject Property is surrounded by parcels of the same zoning and size.  Within the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District, driveways are to maintain a five (5) foot setback from side property lines and  have a surface consisting of asphalt or concrete.

The Applicant has stated that they installed the driveway extension in 2004, only after speaking with the neighbors to the west to ensure that they had no objections.  At that time, City Code did not require a Zoning Permit for a driveway or driveway extension.  Staff reviewed historical aerial images and has confirmed the driveway extension existed dating back to at least 2006. The quality of previous aerial images was not sufficient to verify if it existed prior to 2006.  Nonetheless, 2006 still predated the Zoning Permit requirement, which clarifies why there is no permit on file for the driveway extension.

The Applicant brought in fill to create a level parking area adjacent to their garage and solidified it with a three (3) course block retaining wall.  The bottom course is at least partially below grade.  The surface of the driveway extension consists of a landscape rock or gravel material, which does not comply with the surfacing requirements of the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District.  The edge of the driveway extension is approximately one (1) foot from the Subject Property's side lot line.  Not only does the driveway extension encroach into the required setback, but it also encroaches into a standard five (5) foot Drainage and Utility Easement (the "Easement') as well.

There have been no known drainage issues as a result of the driveway extension encroaching into the Easement and there do not appear to be any small utilities in the Easement either.  The Engineering Division has reviewed the encroachment and based on existing grades, believes that there is still positive drainage and that the driveway extension is not negatively impacting the purpose of the Easement.

There potentially is a location behind the garage that may be able to accommodate parking of the Applicant's trailer, which is the purpose for the driveway extension. That location would require a concrete or asphalt surface as it would still be considered side yard.  If the trailer were stored/parked in the rear yard, it would be permissible to do so on an unimproved (e.g. grass) surface.

The owners of the parcel to the west, directly adjacent to the driveway extension have submitted written comments supporting the variance. 

When contemplating a variance request, there is a three (3) factor test for practical difficulties that must be met by the Applicant. The following are the three (3) factors:

1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner?
2. Is the landowner's problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner?
3. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?

Is the Property Owner prosing to use the Property in a reasonable manner?

A driveway extension is a common and reasonable occurrence on a residential parcel.  Earlier this year, during the review of Ordinance #15-08, which established a standard setback for off-street parking, Staff acknowledged that while it would simplify enforcement of off-street parking standards, it would not necessarily correct or address the common issue of parking either equipment or a vehicle alongside a garage.  The request this evening is an example of that issue.

Is the plight/concern of the Owner due to circumstances unique to the Property not caused by the Property Owner?

It is fairly common to have a sloped grade (albeit a minor slope) along a common side lot line to direct drainage either to the street or to a drainage swale in the rear yard.  It is also fairly common to park equipment and/or vehicles alongside a garage.  In this instance, there simply isn't sufficient space to create a level parking surface in this location and maintain the required five (5) foot setback.

If granted, will the Variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood?

The driveway extension has existed for about ten (10) years and hasn't drawn any attention or concern until just recently.  The area is well maintained and nicely landscaped.  It does not appear that the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered if the variance were granted.

As a reminder, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering variances rather than a providing a recommendation.

Alternatives

Option 1: Approve Resolutions #15-11-270 and #15-11-271 granting a variance to the standard driveway setback, contingent upon upgrading the surface to comply with Section 117-111 (R-1 Residential District) and upon entering into an Easement Encroachment Agreement with the City.  The driveway extension has been in place for about ten (10) years and there have been no known concerns related to drainage or aesthetics.  The Applicant has stated that if the Variance were granted, they would upgrade the surface to comply with the surfacing requirement.  Additionally, the Engineering Division has stated that it does not appear that the driveway extension is impacting or will negatively impact the purpose of the Easement.

Option 2: Approve modified versions of Resolutions #15-11-270 and #15-11-271 granting a variance to the standard driveway setback, contingent upon the fill and retaining wall being removed and replaced with an at-grade asphalt or concrete surface and upon entering into an Easement Encroachment Agreement.  While Staff would not necessarily oppose this option, the Applicant has stated that the reason for the fill and retaining wall was to create a level parking surface.  Also, if the existing driveway extension is not negatively impacting the purpose of the Easement, this option doesn't appear to accomplish anything more than Option 1.

Option 3: Deny the request for a variance to the driveway setback standard.  It does appear that there may be an alternative option for parking/storing the trailer in the side or rear yard of the Subject Property.  There is a level area behind the garage and alongside the home where a concrete or asphalt surface could be installed.  However, the Applicant would still likely want to have a driving surface to access that location which would still require a variance.  The Applicant has also stated that they believe parking the trailer on the driveway extension presents a better image than if it were parked in the rear yard on the grass.  This option would require the Applicant to remove the fill and retaining wall that are within the required setback area.  Staff does not support this option.

 

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

Considering the duration that the driveway extension has been in place already with no known issues, Staff would recommend approval of the Variance contingent upon the driveway extension surface being upgraded to comply with current City Code standards and upon the Applicant entering into an Easement Encroachment Agreement with the City.

Motion to adopt Resolutions #15-11-270 and #15-11-271 granting a variance to the standard driveway setback on the Subject Property.