pf08-038 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 Mr. Fishback owns the residential property at 2895 Hamline Avenue. The property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Low-Density Residential (LR) and a zoning classification of Single-Family Residence District (R-1). 4.2 With the volume of traffic on Hamline Avenue, the on-site daycare use, and additional licensed drivers in the household, residential parking and daycare drop-off/pick-up is becoming increasingly difficult. The applicant has been parking vehicles on the grass along the southern property line until he was recently informed that parking on the grass is prohibited and that vehicles are required to be parked on paved surfaces. 4.3 The proposed driveway would be located in the same location as where the cars had been parked on the grass and is intended to be made with concrete pavers so that the paving may be more easily removed when the additional parking capacity is no longer needed. A second driveway by itself would not require any special approvals, but Mr. Fishback's desire to maintain some distance from an egress window well and preserve mature trees on the property and in the Hamline Avenue right-of-way has led to the proposal to locate the new driveway along the southern side property line. 4.4 The existing driveway is shared with the neighbor to the north and has therefore been paved across the common property boundary. Community Development staff is unable to find any permits or approvals for this nonconforming driveway and assumes that it is a legal nonconformity. 5.0 STAFF COMMENT 5.1 Despite the appearance of a profusion of accessory structures in the rear yard, which is the result of an imperfect system of creating the grey polygons that represent building footprints on property maps, Mr. Fishback has indicated that there is only one accessory building of 192 square feet. The property is about 11,850 square feet in area, accommodating up to about 3,550 square feet of impervious coverage; a driveway like the one presently proposed could be added to the existing improvements and not cause impervious coverage on the property to exceed 30% of the overall lot area. 5.2 Section 1004.016 (Driveway Setbacks) of the City Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet for driveways and parking areas. The proposed driveway expansion would extend to the side property line, which would require a 5-foot VARIANCE. 5.3 Ownership of the property immediately to the south of the proposal has recently changed, and Mr. Fishback waited to make the vAR�ANCE request until he was able to talk with the new neighbors; these new property owners support the present application. 5.4 Mr. Fishback intends to remove the proposed driveway in six or eigfit years' time, once the new/upcoming drivers have moved away. While an INTEx1M UsE PE�uvt�T (IUP) might appear to be an appropriate means to allow a nonconforming driveway that is intended to be temporary, Planning Division staff believes that an IUP is intended to accommodate a shorter timeframe (e.g., up to 5 years) than what would be needed in this case. 5.5 Community Development staff supports the allowance of a 3-foot encroachment into the required driveway setback, but believes that the City Code offers alternatives to a VARIANCE. Specifically, Planning Division staff believes that the ADNt�NtsT�T�vE DEV�AT�oN process is the appropriate way to resolve the problem because staff does not PF08-038 RVBA 090308 Page 2 of 4 � �