PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for a Variance to the Setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark and Bluff Line of the Rum River and the Front Yard Setback for the Property Located at 16601 Fluorine St NW; Case of Michael Musenbrock and Kimberly Barry

The City has received an application for a Variance from Michael Musenbrock and Kimberly Barry (the "Applicants") to construct a detached accessory building that would encroach on the required setbacks from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and bluff line of the Rum River as well as to the required front yard setback on the property located at 16601 Fluorine St NW (the "Property").  The Property is adjacent to the Rum River and is within the Scenic River Land Use District and therefore, in addition to the general standards for detached accessory buildings, is also subject to the standards found in City Code Section 117-256 (District Provisions) related to the Scenic River Land Use District.

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within a 350 foot radius of the Property of the Public Hearing via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also published in the City's official newsletter, the Anoka County Union Herald.

The Property is zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing), is approximately 1.12 acres in size and is surrounded by other similarly sized parcels, all of which are also zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing).  The Property is improved with a home, three (3) car attached garage, and an in-ground swimming pool.  The Applicants desire to construct a 960 square foot (24' x 40') detached accessory building (the "Building") to provide some additional storage space on the Property.

The Scenic River Land Use District includes minimum setbacks from both the OHWM and the bluff line of the Rum River.  The minimum OHWM setback required is 150 feet and the minimum bluff line setback is thirty (30) feet.  The proposed Building would be located approximately sixty-five (65) feet from the OHWM and approximately twenty (20) feet from the bluff line.  The home on the Property, which was constructed in 1978 prior to the enactment of the Scenic River Land Use District regulations (1981), is located approximately sixty (60) feet from the OHWM and approximately thirty (30) feet from the bluff line.  The home would be considered lawful nonconforming with regard to the OHWM setback based on when the home was constructed.

The proposed location of the Building would be approximately twenty-four (24) feet from the front property line. The Property is in the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) zoning district, which requires a minimum setback of forty (40) feet.  Section 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings) was amended a couple years ago to incorporate provisions allowing detached accessory buildings on riparian lots to be located nearer the front property line than the principal structure provided that it met the minimum front yard setback.  The proposed location of the Building would does not meet the required front yard setback for the Rural Developing area.

The Building would be fairly well screened from view from the river by both existing vegetation and the elevation difference (there is an approximately twenty-five [25] foot grade change from the river's edge to the top of bank).  However, the proposed location requires a variance to three (3) different standards: the setback from the OHWM, the setback from the bluff line, and the setback from the front property line.  The proximity to the bluff line is of greatest concern due to the potential for accelerated erosion of the top of the bank.

There are challenges to locating a detached accessory building anywhere on this Property.  However, it does appear that there may be an alternative location for the Building that would potentially only require a variance to the OHWM of the Rum River.  The Applicants have been made aware of this but feel that that is not a desirable location for several reasons.  First, it would be right in front of their front windows.  Secondly, it is more conspicuous for the neighborhood as there is not as much vegetation in that area and could require the removal of a couple mature trees.   Finally, it would result in a driveway coming across the front yard to connect to the existing driveway (fairly steep grade would to directly access the road).

The City has received written comments of support from the four most immediate neighboring property owners.  All are supportive of the proposed location contingent upon the Building being of conventional stick built construction with roofing, siding and stonework to match the home.

When contemplating a variance request, there is a three (3) factor test for practical difficulties that must be met by the Applicant. The following are the three (3) factors:

1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner?
2. Is the landowner's problem due to circumstances unique to the property and not caused by the landowner?
3. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?

When considered independently of other factors, the proposed Building seems reasonable and within the essential character of the neighborhood.  However, it could also be argued that there is already reasonable use of the Property with a home, three (3) car attached garage and an in-ground swimming pool.  Furthermore, the reduced front yard setback is less than that even of the R-1 Residential (MUSA) zoning district, and thus, it could be argued that that is not in alliance with the essential character of the neighborhood either.  The Scenic River Land Use District does result in circumstances not caused directly by the landowner.

Alternatives

Option #1: Deny the request for a variance to deviate from the minimum required setbacks from the OHWM, the bluff line, and the front property line at the current proposed location and pursue the alternative location proposed by Staff.  While the proposed Building would comply with all the general standards for a detached accessory building, the proposed location just does not seem suitable, as evidenced by the need for three (3) different deviations from City Code requirements.  Additionally, it appears that the Applicants do have reasonable use of the Property, considering the existing improvements (home, 3-car attached garage, in-ground swimming pool).  While potentially less desirable for the Applicants (and possibly neighbors), there may be alternative options that could be considered to address their desire for additional storage space that would require fewer, or no, deviations from City Code.

Option #2: Adopt Resolutions #14-09-176 and #14-09-178 granting a variance to the minimum required setbacks from the OHWM, the bluff line, and the front property line for construction of a detached accessory building.  The proposed location is supported by the four (4) closest property owners, contingent upon the Building being a conventional stick built structure with siding, roofing and stonework to match the home.  If the request is to be approved, consideration should be given to requiring additional features to minimize impact to the bluff line and limit/reduce stormwater runoff.  This could include requiring the use of gutters and downspouts to direct water away from the bluff line, use of rain barrels or other stormwater management practices, and the planting of additional trees between the Building and the bluff line. Given that the site plan is a hand-sketch from the Property Owner and not surveyed, Staff would recommend that a Certificate of Survey be required to be filed with the request to ensure that the proposed site plan is accurately drawn.

As a reminder, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity rather than an advisory board when considering a variance request.

All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility.

City Staff recommends denying the request for a variance due primarily to the proximity to the bluff line and the reduced front yard setback and pursuing the suggested alternative location that minimizes the need for multiple variances. This recommendation is also in part due to the response from the DNR, the agency tasked with oversight of the Wild and Scenic Rules, which responded that the DNR was not supportive of the request.

Motion to adopt Resolution #14-09-176 approving Findings of Fact #0934 related to a request for a variance to the driveway setback requirement;

-and-

Motion to adopt Resolution #14-09-177 denying the request for a variance to the required setbacks from the OHWM, the bluff line, and the front property line and directed the Applicant to pursue the alternative location.

-or-

Motion to adopt Resolution #14-09-178 approving the request for a variance to the required setbacks from the OHWM, the bluff line, and the front property line.
.