PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Resolution #21-178 Denying a Variance for 7474 163rd Ave NW (Project 21-118); Case of Manuel Cuevas

The purpose of this case is to consider a request from Manuel Cuevas (the "Applicant") for a detached structure to continue to be placed within the side yard setback of the property at 7474 163rd Ave NW (the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is approximately 0.38 acres. The currently placed building is a 10 x 12 foot shed to store items. The Subject Property is in the R-1 Residential (MUSA) Zoning District and guided as Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The Subject Property abuts other residential properties. There are wetlands on the southern portion of the Subject Property.

The City attempted to send a mailing via Standard US Mail to property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property, as noted in the Anoka County Property Records, notifying them of the public hearing. The notice was also published in the Anoka County UnionHerald.

Summary
The Applicant has requested a variance to keep a 10' x 12' detached shed (the "Structure") zero (0) feet off the eastern lot line of the Subject Property, overlaying the entire width of the drainage and utility easement. The City would typically apply the required side yard setback from the east property line of the Subject Property, which would be six (6) feet away, but also apply at least ten (10) feet from the east property line to remain out of the drainage and utility easement - a total distance of ten (10) feet from the neighboring property line to remain out of the easement and setback.

The requested variance is to deviate from the required side yard setback of six (6) feet from the east property line. The Applicant would prefer to keep the Structure in its current placement due to aesthetics. For the Structure to remain in its current location, the Planning Commission would have to approve a Variance to the side yard setback requirement of City Code, and an Easement Agreement would need to be approved by the City Council to encroach in the drainage and utility easement. The Structure cannot stay in the current location without both the Variance, and the Easement Agreement.

The Subject Property only has the one (1) accessory structure on the property, with a fire pit located to the west, and a garden and wetlands located to the south. See the attached Presentation for current and alternatives placements of the Structure, and an overview of the discussion that was provided by City Staff to the Applicant after a meeting on May 11, 2021.

Variance Considerations
When considering granting a variance, statute states that the Planning Commission should consider the following three questions, which is the three-pronged test to decide if there is a practical difficulty onsite:

• Is the request reasonable? Accessory buildings are an allowed use in the residential district, and are common throughout the City of Ramsey. This building is an allowable size under current City ordinances. Staff finds the building is reasonable.
• Is the situation unique? Staff does not feel that the situation is unique. The variance is requested because of the personal preference of the Applicant for placement of the shed along the east property line. The side yard setback of six (6) feet should be applied on the east lot line. Staff is handling at least four other Code Enforcement cases that are similar, and this is not a unique situation. The rear yard has other space for a shed. While variances do not set precedence legally, this could cause tension with other residents who are also told this is not allowed and lead to other variance requests. 
• Would the request alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Staff does feel that the request would alter the character of the neighborhood. Detached structures are a common feature throughout Ramsey, and in this neighborhood. Other properties in the area have been held to the same standard for setback requirements in regards to their accessory structures. If a variance were to be approved for the side setback, additional applicants are expected to come forward with similar requests. 

Based on the three factor test above, Staff does not feel that the request meets the requirements to pass a variance.

City Code Sections

• 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings)
• 117- 111 (R-1 Residential District).

Alternatives
Alternative 1: Deny the variance request.
Alternative 2: Approve the variance request. Staff does not feel the variance request is reasonable, unique, and meets the criteria for a variance. 

Reminder that the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial manner for variance requests.

The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with this project and review.

Staff recommends Planning Commission adopt Resolution #21-178 denying a Variance to side setback for a detached structure at 7474 163rd Ave NW.

Motion to adopt Resolution #21-178 denying a Variance to side setback for a detached structure at 7474 163rd Ave NW.