PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a Request for a Variance to the Setback Requirements for a Driveway at the Property Located at 5186 146th Cir NW; Case of Douglas W. Gerick and Catherine McPherson

The City has received an application for a variance to setback requirements for a driveway to facilitate the construction of a driveway extension to an existing detached garage on the property located at 5186 146^th Cir NW (the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is located within the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District and is thus subject to standards found in Sec. 117-111.

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property of the Public Hearing. A Public Notice was also advertised in the Anoka UnionHerald.

The Subject Property is approximately 0.3 acres in size and is located within the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District. It is surrounded by properties also within the same zoning district. The Subject Property currently contains an attached garage with a driveway and a detached garage situated behind the attached garage without a driveway. The Applicant is proposing to construct an extension of the existing driveway to access the detached garage. As shown in Exhibit A, the driveway would be, at its closest point, two (2) feet from the property line. This distance would encroach upon the minimum five (5) foot setback for driveways required for properties in the R-1 Residential District. The area established by this setback also corresponds with the drainage and utility easement on the Subject Property.

If a detached garage were constructed today, it would require a driveway as outlined in Sec. 117-349. The detached garage on the Subject Property was constructed in 2004, prior to adoption of the current driveway requirement for detached accessory buildings. Therefore, vehicle access to the detached garage on the Subject Property is currently a legal nonconforming use. If the variance were granted, the construction of the driveway would eliminate that nonconformity.

Staff has reviewed the request with the Engineering Department with regard to the encroachment in the drainage and utility easement.  As long as the Applicant maintains both positive drainage and existing grades at the the property line so as not to negatively impact the property to the north, they are comfortable with the encroachment.   The Applicant has discussed the driveway extension with the neighbors to the north and received their written support for the construction (Exhibit B).

The Applicant would need to enter into an Easement Encroachment Agreement with the City of Ramsey. This agreement establishes the responsibility of the Applicant to remove that portion of the driveway encroaching on the five (5) foot drainage and utility easement if necessary to facility maintenance (drainage or utilities) or installation of new utilities. All costs associated with such removal will be the responsibility of the Applicant. In conversations with the Applicant, this responsibility has been anticipated and incorporated into the design of the driveway extension. For instance, the Applicant is proposing to use brick pavers as the surface material in lieu of asphalt or concrete, which is an easier material to remove than the latter two materials, and has also incorporated drain tile into the design as well.

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 not caused by the landowner?
3. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?

The variance request appears to satisfy Factors 1 and 3. Using a driveway to access a detached garage is allowed in the R-1 Residential District and is therefore a reasonable use. The Subject Property is on a cul-de-sac, and like many cul-de-sac lots, is pie-shaped with narrower road frontage than a standard lot.  In cul-de-sacs, at least a portion of driveways are typically near the side property line and thus, the three (3) foot encroachment would have little to no effect on the essential character of the neighborhood. In consideration of Factor 2, there is nothing inherent to the physical landscape of the Subject Property that is creating the plight that the variance would remedy.  However, one could argue that, if a detached accessory building were permitted to be constructed on a property that there would be a reasonable expectation to be able to access the building via a driveway.

Alternatives

Option #1: Approve Resolutions #14-06-099 and #14-06-100 granting a variance to the minimum required driveway setback.  The Applicant has discussed the potential location of the driveway with the adjacent neighbor most likely to be impacted should the Variance be approved and has received written statement of support from that property owner for the encroachment.  The Applicant is aware that an Encroachment Agreement, to be recorded against the Subject Property, outlining responsibilities for potential removal of the encroachment if necessary for routine and/or emergency work within the easement will be required.  The Encroachment Agreement will also stipulate that the owner of the Subject Property shall maintain both positive drainage and existing grades at the common property line.  With these provisions in place, Staff supports this option.

Option #2: Approve an amended version of Resolutions #14-06-099 and #14-06-100.  This option would be based on discussion and could result in a lesser deviation from the required setback.

Option #3: Deny the request for a Variance.  This action would require that any extension of the existing driveway would have to maintain the minimum required setback of five (5) feet from the side property line.  Staff believes that the driveway extension is a reasonable use of the Subject Property and that it will eliminate a lawful non-conforming situation (detached accessory building without a driveway).  Furthermore, only a portion of the driveway extension would encroach on the required setback, not the entire length of the extension.  Finally, the property owner immediately adjacent to the proposed extension has already provide written support for the Applicant's request and thus, Staff does not support this option.

As a reminder, for variances, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity rather than an advisory board.

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

City Staff recommends approving Resolutions #14-06-099 and #14-06-100 related to a request for a variance to the setback requirement for driveways.

Motion to adopt Resolution #14-06-099 approving Findings of Fact #0927 related to a request for a variance to the driveway setback requirement;

-and-

Motion to adopt Resolution #14-06-100 approving the request for a variance.