Request for a Variance to Construct a Detached Accessory Building Nearer the Front Property Line than the Principal Structure and to Encroach on the Side Yard Setback for a Corner Lot on the Property Located at 8612 168th Ave NW; Case of George and Roxy Koehler

On September 8, 2011, George and Roxanne Koehler submitted an application for a variance to Sections 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings) and 117-111 (R-1 Residential District) of the Ramsey City Code relating to the construction of a detached accessory building that would be nearer the front property line than the principal structure and that would encroach on the required side yard setback on a corner lot. 

In accordance with State Statute, Staff attempted to notify property owners within 350 feet of the subject property of the public hearing via Standard US Mail.  The public hearing was also noticed in the Anoka County Union, the City's official newsletter for public notices.

The Subject Property is roughly 0.92 acres in size.   Therefore, in accordance with City Code Section 117-349, the construction of any detached accessory building should not be nearer the front property line than the principal structure, which is setback forty-five (45) feet from the front property line.  The Subject Property also has frontages along both 168th Ave (front) and 167th Lane (side/rear), which requires a minimum setback from those property lines of forty (40) feet as outlined in City Code Section 117-111.  The septic tank and drain field are located behind the existing, attached garage.

The Applicant is proposing to construct a thirty foot by forty foot (30' x 40') detached accessory building that would be located forty (40) feet from the front property line and thirty-eight (38) feet from the side/rear lot line.  While meeting the minimum required front yard setback, it would still be five (5) feet closer to the road than the home and would encroach two (2) feet into the side/rear yard setback for a corner lot.  The proposed structure would have an exterior finish that matches the home including brick and cedar on the front and vinyl siding on the other three (3) walls.  The detached accessory building would also have the same roof pitch as the home and would comply with the sixteen (16) foot height restriction.

Currently, there are no other detached accessory buildings on the Subject Property.  With a recent City Code amendment, the attached garage no longer counts toward the total square feet allowable for accessory buildings and thus, the proposed building is well below the allowable square footage (1,800).  The Applicant will also be installing a second driveway (off 168th Ave) to access this detached accessory building, which complies with City Code (a driveway is now required for any detached accessory building with a doorway opening eight [8] feet wide by seven [7] feet tall or greater). 

As the Board of Adjustment may recall, there was a recent amendment to Minnesota Statute Sect. related to variance procedures. In general terms, the major change included the elimination of the 'undue hardship' standard, replaced by the 'practical difficulty' standard. The new, less stringent standard allows cities to approve a variance from the literal provisions of the zoning ordinance if the Applicant proves the request is reasonable. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. The three (3) factor 'practical difficulty' test is as follows:
 
1.Property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
2.The plight of the landowner is unique to the property and not created by the landowner
3.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood

When seeking a variance, the Applicant must also prove that the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

As a reminder, the Board of Adjustment is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Unlike the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment is not a recommending body, rather is deciding on approval or denial of the Variance, subject to appeals to the City Council.

All costs associated with the request are the responsibility of the Applicant.

That due to a combination of existing factors, including the unique shape of the Subject Property, location of the septic tank and drain field, and the dual frontages, it is difficult to site a detached accessory building such that it complies with current zoning regulations.  Additionally, there is a significant grade change from the rear of the property down to 167th Lane that, in conjunction with the existing vegetation, will provide some screening for the proposed building from 167th Lane.  The proposed accessory building does not conflict with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and seems consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore, Staff recommends approving the variance.

Motion to adopt the resolution approving Findings of Fact related to the request for a variance to construct a detached accessory building nearer the front property line than the principal structure and to encroach on the side/rear setback for corner lots.

-AND-

Motion to adopt the resolution approving the variance to construct a detached accessory building nearer the front property line than the principal structure and to encroach on the side/rear setback for corner lots and declaring the terms of the same.