PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a Request for a Variance to the Front Yard Setback on the Property Located at 16062 Rhinestone St NW; Case of Trilogy Homes, Inc.

The City has received an application from Trilogy Homes, Inc. (the "Applicant") requesting a variance to the minimum front yard setback on the property located at 16062 Rhinestone St NW (the "Subject Property") to allow a twenty-five (25) foot setback.

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 Subject Property is approximately 0.80 acres in size and is located in the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District.  It is surrounded by other residential properties also located in the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District of similar or slightly smaller sizes.  While the Subject Property is nearly an acre in size, more than half of the lot consists of wetland encumbered by drainage and utility easement (easement extends almost fifteen [15] feet beyond wetland boundary).  In fact, under current standards (lot depth and wetland setback), this lot likely would not have been considered buildable.
 
The Subject Property is within the plat known as Sweetbay Ridge, which was approved in 2006 and predates the lot depth and wetland setback requirements.  As part of the original review of this plat, the developer had applied for and was granted a variance for a twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback for all the lots along the Rhinestone St cul-de-sac.  That approval was based on the desire to minimize impacts to wetlands and to minimize tree removal as well.  The plat was designed for the twenty-five (25) foot setback along this street.  However, one of the conditions within the approved Variance stated that it would become null and void if not initiated within twelve (12) months of the date of approval and that recording of the Sweetbay Ridge plat shall be considered as initiation of the variance.  The plat was not recorded within that timeframe rendering the 2005 variance null and void.

Due to the frontage along the bulb of the cul-de-sac, the front of the proposed home would be approximately in line with the existing home on the adjacent lot.  Additionally, there is no home on the opposite side of the Subject Property as that parcel is encumbered entirely with drainage and utility easement.  The Applicant has worked with City Staff to alter various dimensions of the proposed home to avoid requesting either an easement vacation or an easement encroachment agreement.

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?

A single family residential dwelling on the Subject Property would be a reasonable use of the property. The amount of wetland area present is unique to the Subject Property and was not caused by the Applicant. The position of the proposed home appears to be in line with the adjacent, existing home and there would not be a home on the other side of the Subject Property and thus, the variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

Alternatives

Alternative 1.  Approve Resolutions #16-10-179 and #16-10-180 adopting Findings of Fact #0967 and granting a variance to the required front yard setback.  Under today's standards, the Subject Property would not meet the criteria to be considered buildable due to the wetland setback and lot depth requirements.  Additionally, when the plat was originally designed, it was based on a twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback as the developer had successful obtained a variance for this (again, that variance became null and void because the plat was not recorded within twelve [12] months of approval of that variance).  The slight deviation from the required setback does not appear that it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood and thus, Staff supports this alternative.

Alternative 2.  Do not approve the variance request.  This is a somewhat challenging lot based on the cul-de-sac bulb and amount of wetland.  The proposed home appears consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and will not alter the character of the area as it appears to be approximately in line with the adjacent home.  Staff does not support this alternative.

 

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

Staff recommends approving Resolutions #16-10-179 and #16-10-180 adopting Findings of Fact #0967 granting a variance to the front yard setback requirement (alternative #1).

Motion to adopt Resolution #16-10-179 approving Findings of Fact #0967 and Resolution #16-10-180 granting a variance to the front yard setback.