Consider a variance for a lean-to structure at 6960 148th Lane NW (Curtis Forster)

The homeowner, Mr. Curtis Forster (the applicant), constructed a lean-to structure over a concrete parking slab on the west side of the attached garage.  A lean-to is a roof extension supported on one side by the garage or house and on the other side by posts.  The slab was installed in the summer of 2020 and the lean-to in the fall of 2023.  This structure was constructed without the proper building permits and zoning permits (required for driveways in 2020) and encroaches in the required 5-foot side yard setback.   The structure and parking slab were brought to staff's attention through a code enforcement complaint.  The variance request is a part of the applicant's due process rights to remedy the infraction.  

The property is zoned R-1A Single-Family Residential District and guided Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan.  The property is 0.82 acres in size and the lot includes a portion of a large wetland.  

Zoning Issues
Driveways, parking spaces, and structures within the R-1A zoning district are required to have a 5-foot side yard setback.  The lean-to extends over the slab with the posts set a couple inches in from the edge.  The roof overhang and gutters are within inches of the property line.  

Architecturally, the lean-to front is open-aired with the side and rear walls constructed out of cedar decking planks.  The roof of the structure is a metal product while the roof of the house and attached garage is a typical residential asphalt shingle. The roof of the structure is partially supported by posts attached to the roof of the garage with the lean-to roof extending above the roof line.  The gap between the garage roof and the top of the lean-to roof is filled in by semi-transparent corrugated fiberglass panels. None of the building materials meet the architectural requirements of City Code. To be compliant with the architectural design requirements of City Code, the metal roofing should be replaced with a matching asphalt shingle, the wall planks covered with a matching lap siding, and the corrugated fiberglass replaced with glass. 

Building Code Issues
The structure was constructed without a building permit.  Any structure that is added to the main house is required to have a building permit.  The building permit review process looks at several things including, and most notably in the case of lean-tos, frost footing depth, structural attachment to the garage, and the materials that are used in relationship to the property line.  Within 5 feet of a property line, structures need to be constructed in a way that would prevent a fire from jumping to the next structure.  

Should the variance be approved, the structure will need to have a building permit.  It is likely that the structure will need to be rebuilt to meet the fire rating requirements. Variances to the Building Code are not possible since this is a state-wide regulation.  The applicant has met with the City's Building Official to discuss correction options.  

Variance
The applicant is requesting a variance to the side yard setback requirement of 5 feet for both the slab and the lean-to structure.  City Code mirrors state law on the possible justification criteria for granting variances.  Overall, the request must be reasonable and unique to the property.  The following is the section of City Code addressing variances:

Sec. 106-220. - Variances.
(a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(b) Public hearing notice mailing distance is 350 feet.
(c) Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning code. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means:
   (1) That the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code;
   (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
   (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
   (4) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties;
   (5) Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems; and
   (6) Public takings of property due to condemnation.
   (7) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stats. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter.
(d) The planning commission may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning code for property in the district where the affected person's land is located.
(e) The planning commission may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance.

The applicant provided a narrative outlining his justification for the variances attached to this report.  He stated that his variance request meets criteria 1, 2, and 3 above.  

Additional Consideration
The structure is constructed in a platted drainage and utility easement.  Per City Code, driveways are allowed in these easements provided that they do not inhibit the flow of water and at the owner's expense for removal in the event that the easement area is needed for its intended use.  The lean-to, however, is not permitted.  Therefore, an encroachment agreement is necessary if the variance is approved.  

Mailed notifications were sent to property owners within 350 feet of the site.  A "proposed development" sign was placed on the property.  A legal notice was placed in the July 12 Anoka Union Hearld Newspaper.  

Alternatives to Consider

1.  Approve the variance as requested and justified by the applicant.  
2.  Approve a variance for the concrete slab only.  
3.  Deny the variance, citing a lack of adequate practical difficulties in justifying the variance.  

All costs associated with this project are the responsibility of the applicant.  

Staff's recommendation is that the supplied practical difficulties used to justify the variance for the lean-to structure are not reasonable and the variance should be denied.  The siding material is not consistent with the applicant's siding nor other siding in the neighborhood.    It is not an approved architectural material for homes.  It can be found as deck and fencing material.  Should the walls be removed, an open-aired lean-to would appear more in character of a residential property. However, if the property owner or the adjacent neighbor chose to build a fence along the property line, the structure would immediately look out of place.  Variances cannot restrict what neighboring property owners do.  Therefore, the variance for the structure should be denied.  Staff is taking no position on the concrete slab.  

Motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution... [pick one of the following]
1.  ...approving the variance for a slab and lean-to structure based on the following practical difficulties: [insert findings here].
2.  ...approving the variance for a slab and a roof-only lean-to structure based on the following practical difficulties: [insert findings here].
3.  ...approving the variance for a slab only based on the following practical difficulties: [insert findings here].
4.  ...denying the variance for a slab and lean-to structure based on inadequate practical difficulties.    

The resolution for the selected option will be brought back to the next Planning Commission and placed on the consent agenda for adoption.