PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for a Variance to Accessory Building Setback Requirements (Project #117-13); Case of Steve Roeder

The City has received an application from Steve and Christine Roeder (the "Applicant") requesting a variance to the minimum side corner yard setback on the property located at 15359 Zumi Ct NW (the "Subject Property") to allow a six (6) foot setback.  This matter was originally brought to the City's attention through the Code Enforcement program as the Applicant had begun work without a permit.

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within a 350 foot radius of the Subject 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 0.34 acres in size and is in the R-1 Residential (MUSA) District. It is surrounded by other residential properties of similar size which are also zoned as R-1 Residential (MUSA). The Subject Property is irregular in shape, in that it is long and narrow. It is also unique in that it is a corner cul-de-sac lot, so the property has public road right-of-way on three (3) sides of the property. As a result, the Subject Property has extensive setback requirements rendering much of it unusable after the required thirty (30) foot setbacks adjacent to public right-of-way. The Subject Property is within the plat known as Highlands at River Park.

The Applicant was unaware that the construction of a smaller accessory structure required a permit, so the structure in question was constructed without one. The required setback for the accessory structure is thirty (30) feet along Zuni Ct. NW. The accessory structure was constructed within that setback. The Applicant has been advised of minimum setback requirement and that a Zoning Permit is required.  Subsequently, the Applicant submitted an application for a variance to allow the structure to remain in its current location. The official request is a variance of twenty-four (24) feet from the required thirty (30) foot corner side yard setback. 
 
The accessory structure is 10’ x 12’ (120 square feet). It is located six (6) feet from the property line and within an existing ten (10) foot drainage and utility easement.  The Applicant is aware that an Encroachment Agreement would need to be executed between the property owner and the City if a variance to the setback standard were approved.  The Engineering Department has reviewed this request and noted that have no objection to the encroachment into the drainage and utility easement, with an approved Easement Encroachment Agreement, should the Planning Commission approve the requested variance.
 
An accessory structure constructed on the Subject Property is a reasonable use of the property. The property contains no other accessory structures, and the structure does not exceed maximum allowable size requirements. In this case, the layout of the property constitutes circumstances unique to the property. This property is the only one in the area that has a very long and narrow shape. It also has significantly more street frontage than others in the area, which causes a large portion of the rear yard to fall within the required setback from Zuni Ct. NW. These circumstances were not caused by the landowner. Due to these considerations, the Applicant feels that the structure is located in the most reasonable spot within the rear yard. If granted, the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The structure is located on the inside of a six (6) foot privacy fence, which means the visual impact of the structure to neighboring properties is limited.

Alternatives

Alternative 1.  Approve Resolutions #17-04-081 and #17-04-082 adopting Findings of Fact #0979 and granting a variance to the required corner side yard setback, contingent upon an executed encroachment agreement for the accessory building to be located in an existing drainage and utility easement. The Applicant unknowingly constructed the accessory structure within the required thirty (30) foot corner side yard setback. The location was chosen by the Applicant because of its level grade, the fact that it was clear of trees, it was the area furthest from neighboring properties, and for aesthetic reasons. The unique circumstance and practical difficulty in this case is the unique shape of the property and that the property fronts public right-of-way on three sides. In addition, allowing the one-hundred-twenty (120) square foot accessory structure to remain in its current location 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.  While the accessory structure, as it sits today, does not meet minimum setback requirements, it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Staff does not support this alternative.

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

Staff recommends approving Resolutions #17-04-081 and #17-04-082 adopting Findings of Fact #0979 granting a variance to the corner side yard setback requirement, contingent upon an executed encroachment agreement between the property owner and the City for the accessory building to be located in the existing drainage and utility easement. (alternative #1).

Motion to adopt Resolution #17-04-081 approving Findings of Fact #0979 and Resolution #17-04-082 granting a variance to the corner side yard setback.