Laserfiche WebLink
Item 05A <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br /> The applicant requested a Variance for a second curb cut to replace the parking area, and the <br /> City Council approved on June 121h. The second curb cut was planned to be located between <br /> two trees. At that time (June 12th), neither the applicant nor City Staff realized the planned <br /> driveway would encroach into the neighboring property; 7785 Spring Lake Road, which has <br /> property on both sides of the road (house is on the opposite side). <br /> I <br /> ti <br /> y I <br /> EIN <br /> Approximate property lines(red), and planned 12'driveway curb cut(yellow arrow). At the time the City Council approved a <br /> second curb cut,it was not realized that the planned location encroached into the neighboring yard(photo April 18,2023). <br /> t <br /> Yellow arrow is approximate proposed driveway location. <br /> Staff met with the Dreir's on July 61h to discuss. If complying with the 5' setback, then there is <br /> inadequate width between the setback and an oak tree to park a vehicle. Either the tree would <br /> need to be removed, or a Variance obtained to reduce the setback. In favor of keeping the tree, <br /> it is more practical to reduce the side yard setback from 5' to 0'. A 0' setback will accommodate <br /> a 12' wide curb cut. The new driveway may still impact the tree root zone. <br /> Analysis: <br /> City Code §160.466 includes the criteria for granting Variances, which is detailed in the <br /> Resolution. In summary, the property must have unique circumstances which do not apply to <br /> I lie . .......... ...... ......... <br /> A Thriving Desirable Community <br />