PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for a Variance to Allow a Detached Accessory Building to be Located Nearer the Front Property Line than the Principal Building on the Property Located at 16841 Wolverine Ct NW; Case of Allen and Ginger Millner

The City has received an application from Allen and Ginger Millner (the "Applicant") for a variance to allow a portion of a detached accessory building to be located nearer the front property line than the principal building at the property located at 16841 Wolverine Ct NW (the "Subject Property").

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.

City Code Section 117-349 (d)(12) requires detached accessory buildings to be located in the side or rear yard of properties that are less than two (2) acres.  Based on the size of the Subject Property, the Applicant is eligible for up to 2,200 square feet of accessory building space.  The Subject Property is approximately 1.20 acres in size. While compliant with the square footage allotment, the proposed building is not permitted to be nearer the front property line than the principal building without the issuance of a variance.

The Applicant has chosen the proposed location for a variety of reasons outlined in the attached letter. Primarily, the Applicant has noted that a concern of reducing access to the rear of the home for purposes of required septic pumping and maintenance. The septic system is located in the rear of the property but, based on the as-built drawing of the system, it appears to be located directly behind the home. Considering the assumed location of the septic system, the location of the septic system itself should not be a prohibiting factor.  However, the Applicant explains the concern to be about access to the septic system, not the system itself. The Applicant has stated that an attached garage would not provide sufficient width on the side property line. The Applicant feels that the spacing between the existing home and the proposed detached accessory structure shall provide sufficient space for a septic pumping truck to maneuver.

Additionally, the Applicant has stated that in order to access two (2) garage doors from the the existing driveway, a portion of the building would need to be located slightly forward of the home. The proposed location and detail/accuracy has changed slightly throughout the review process. The Applicant is not fully confident on the accurate measurement of the front yard setback, so it will be important to require a Certificate of Survey prior to construction, if the Variance is approved. It should be noted that if a variance were granted to allow the structure to be nearer the front property line than the principal building, it may also need to address the standard front yard setback requirement of forty (40) feet.  The proposed location would comply with minimum side yard setback of ten (10) feet.

The Applicant has stated that the exterior finish of the detached accessory building would match that of the home, which is required when a detached accessory building is located nearer the front property line than the principal building.  Also, if the location is approved, the detached accessory building cannot be taller than the principal building.  The variance application submittal did not address this standard and thus, this would need to be verified when the Building Permit Application is submitted, should the variance request be approved.

Finally, there also appears to be sufficient space in the rear of the Subject Property, similar to the Applicant's existing detached accessory building, that would also eliminate the need for a variance. The Applicant has stated that the intent of moving the structure slightly forward is to create sufficient space between the existing structure and the proposed detached structure. Staff is open to re-evaluating the request if the Applicant can sufficiently demonstrate that other potential locations in the rear yard are not reasonable alternatives, an important component of processing any Variance per State Statute.

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?

Is the Property Owner proposing to use the Property in a reasonable manner?

While a detached accessory structure itself is a reasonable and common occurrence on a residential parcel, the proposed location does not seem reasonable as there appears to be alternative locations where the structured could be sited to eliminate the need for a variance.  Also, there do not appear to be any unique physical characteristics of the Subject Property that would warrant siting the building slightly forward of the principal building, with the exception of perhaps the orientation of the side property line.

Is the plight/concern of the Owner due to circumstances unique to the Property not caused by the Property Owner?

The Applicant is the original owner of the property, and chose the current location of existing structures.

If granted, will the Variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood?

In reviewing the neighborhood, there are other detached accessory buildings, but they are generally located in the rear yards of properties and thus, it could be argued that the proposed location of the detached accessory building would be inconsistent with the surrounding area.

Staff has received written comments from the neighbors directly south of the Subject Property opposing the request.  Their primary concern is that there appears to be alternative locations to locate the detached accessory building that would not require a variance.  This commenter notes that they feel that this Variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Their comments are attached.

As a reminder, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering variances rather than a providing a recommendation. If the variance were approved, the Applicant has stated that their intention is to get the footings and foundation in yet this year and then complete the project in 2016.

Alternatives

Alternative #1: Approve Resolutions #15-10-257 and #15-10-258 denying the request for a variance.  Based on the submitted information and review of the Subject Property and property file, the request does not appear to satisfy the State Statute three-factor test for practical difficulties.  It appears that the building shape and/or location could be modified to eliminate the need for a variance. 

Alternative #2:   Approve Resolutions #15-10-257 and #15-10-258 granting a variance to allow a detached accessory building to be located nearer the front property line than the principal building on a property less than two (2) acres in size.  There do not appear to be any unique physical characteristics on the Subject Property that would prohibit the building from being sited in a location that would not require a variance.

Alternative #3: Table action and request additional information from the Applicant.  There may be additional factors that have not been brought forward by the Applicant to support the proposed location. While this may ultimately result in future approval of the request, it likely would delay the project entirely until 2016. Staff would re-consider the request if the Applicant can better describe why other locations on the Property are not feasible, including a detached structure in the rear yard or an expansion of the attached garage.

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

Given that limited information provided by the Applicant describing why other potentially reasonable sites on the Subject Property are not feasible and known public opposition to the request, Staff recommends denying the variance request as it appears there are other viable locations the building could be sited without requiring a variance. Staff is willing to re-evaluate this recommendation if additional information is provided.

Motion to approve Resolution #15-10-257 adopting Findings of Fact #0954 and Resolution #15-10-258 approving/denying the request for a variance to allow a detached accessory building to be located nearer the front property line than the principal building on the property located at 16841 Wolverine Ct NW.

(NOTE: if the motion is for denial of the request, the motion should include removing the individual standards of construction, as the proposed structure would not be approved)