PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for Variance to Minimum Lot Size and Width at 4944 178th Lane NW (Project No. 20-129); Case of Jack and Sandra Kuhn

The City has received an application from Jack and Sandra Kuhn (the "Applicant") for a variance to minimum lot size on their property located at 4944 178th Lane NW (the "Subject Property").  The neighbor to the west of the Applicant has applied for an Administrative Subdivision to realign the common lot line along the eastern boundary of the Subject Property (the Applicant was a part of that application as well) to correct an encroachment issue.  The realignment of the common lot line will reduce the size and width of the Subject Property, resulting in the need for a variance.

The City attempted to notify Property Owners, as reflected in the Anoka County Property Records, within 350 feet of the Subject Property of the request.

The Applicant's neighbor (17840 Tonto Street NW) has applied for an Administrative Subdivision to realign two common lot lines, one with the Subject Property and the other involves 5022 179th Avenue NW.  The purpose of the Administrative Subdivision is to correct two encroachment issues involving detached accessory buildings (one belonging to 17840 Tonto St. and one belonging to 5022 179th Ave). 

The property owner of 17840 Tonto Street (west of the Subject Property) is selling their home and as part of that process, it was discovered that their detached garage is entirely on the Applicant's property.  Additionally, it was also discovered that a detached accessory building belonging to 5022 179th Avenue was just slightly encroaching over the common lot line with 17840 Tonto Street.  Thus, the property owner of 17840 Tonto Street has applied for an Administrative Subdivision to realign two lot lines and by doing so, will completely address both encroachment issues.

All three properties are in the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District, which requires a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and a minimum lot width of 200 feet.  The Subject Property is currently 1.7 acres in size (considered lawful, nonconforming) and has a width of approximately 232 feet.  The proposed Administrative Subdivision would reduce the lot size to approximately 1.4 acres and the lot width to approximately 168 feet.

When considering a Variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors:

1. Will the variance allow the property owner to use the property in a reasonable manner?
2. Is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner?
3. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?

The Subject Property will continue to be used as a single family residence, a reasonable use in the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District.  The Applicant did not create this circumstance as it was the result of an adjoining property owner errantly constructing an accessory structure on the Subject Property.  The surrounding parcels to the east and north are all approximately 1 acre or so in size so the reduction in lot size of the Subject Property would not be inconsistent with the general character of the neighborhood.  Furthermore, based on how the properties have been used (driveway location and detached garage), the reduction in width would be inconspicuous as well.  The result of the Administrative Subdivision, should the variance be approved, would also correct two existing encroachments and ensure that the existing buildings meet current setbacks.

As a reminder, when addressing variances, the Planning Commission is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity rather than in an advisory capacity.

Alternatives

Alternative 1: Approve the variance to lot size and width as requested.  The lot size will be consistent with many of the surrounding properties.  From the public's perspective, the reduced width would not be noticeable due to the location of the adjacent property's detached accessory building and driveway.  The variance, if approved, would allow for the completion of an Administrative Subdivision that would correct multiple, existing encroachments impacting three properties.  

Alternative 2: Deny the variance.  Should the variance be denied, it would result in necessary modifications and/or removals of certain improvements owned by the neighboring property.  More specifically, the existing concrete driveway would need to be relocated and/or reconfigured to eliminate the encroachment onto the Subject Property.  Furthermore, the neighbor's detached accessory building, which encroaches onto the Subject Property, would also need to be either relocated or removed entirely.  The variance would result in the Subject Property being out of character for the neighborhood.  

The Applicant is responsible for all costs incurred while processing this request.

Staff recommends adopting Resolution #20-222 granting a variance to lot size and width for the Subject Property, which will allow an Administrative Subdivision to be completed to correct multiple, existing structure encroachments.

Motion to adopt Resolution #20-222, granting a variance to lot size and width for the Subject Property.