PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for a Variance to Rear Yard Setbacks to Accommodate an Addition to the Rear of the Home at 15395 Armstrong Blvd NW; Case of Peter and Lynn Medved

The City has received an application from Peter and Lynn Medved (the "Applicant") to construct an addition to the rear of their home at 15395 Armstrong Blvd NW (the "Subject Property") that would encroach into the required rear yard setback.

In accordance with State statute, Staff attempted to notify property owners within 350 feet of the subject property of the public hearing via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also noticed in the Anoka County Union Herald, the City's official newsletter for public notices.

The Subject Property is located within the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District, which requires a forty (40) foot rear yard setback.  The home on the Subject Property is currently about forty-six (46) feet from the rear lot line.  The Applicant has proposed construction of a fourteen foot by twenty-four foot (14' x 24') addition off the rear wall of the home that would be approximately thirty-two (32) feet from the rear lot line.

In 2000, the former owner of the property had applied for a Minor Subdivision to split an approximate twenty (20) acre parcel into two (2), ten (10) acre lots, one of which would become the Subject Property.  The Sketch Plan had been reviewed by the Planning Commission with direction to proceed to Final Plat.  However, shortly after the review of the Sketch Plan, the City initiated takings proceedings to acquire the necessary right of way for the extension of 153rd/155th Ave (now known as Alpine Drive) east from Armstrong Blvd.  Subsequent to that action, the Final Plat was approved.

There was (and still is) a large wetland complex that forced the location for the road extension further west than it otherwise would have been, creating a fairly narrow lot, especially for the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District (approximate depth of 160 feet).  At that time, about eight (8) acres that had been a part of the Subject Property was separated from the home site by Alpine Drive.  That portion consisted almost entirely of wetland and had been completely encumbered with drainage and utility easement.  Thus, in 2009, the City ended up acquiring the remainder of the land that was east of Alpine Drive.  
  
The existing home on the Subject Property, which does meet all required setbacks, was constructed after the construction of Alpine Drive.  However, due to the acquisition of right-of-way, the siting of the home was somewhat limited based on required setbacks.  The proposed home addition is a three/four season porch that is elevated off the ground.  It will be finished with lap siding, windows and architectural shingles consistent with 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?

The proposed home addition is a reasonable in a residential district.  The narrow depth of the lot is the result of the acquisition of right-of-way for the extension of Alpine Drive.  It is because of this right-of-way acquisition that the proposed addition now is unable to meet the minimum required rear yard setback.  Based on the undevelopable land east of Alpine, the tree cover and existing accessory structures between the home on the Subject Property and the two adjacent parcels, the proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the locality.

Alternatives

Alternative 1: Adopt Resolution #17-11-280 granting a variance to rear yard setbacks for a proposed home addition on the Subject Property.  The proposed addition is a reasonable use on a residential property.  The narrow depth of the lot is due to the City's acquisition of right-of-way for the extension of Alpine Drive, which is resulting in the need for the variance.  The proposed home addition will be consistent with the exterior finish of the home and will be somewhat screened from Alpine Drive.  Staff supports this alternative.

Alternative 2: Do not grant the variance to the rear yard setback requirement.  While the proposed addition would encroach into the required rear yard setback for the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District, it is not a significant encroachment (it would still comply with the required setback in the MUSA area).  Furthermore, the lot does not back up to another lot, so there is not nearby living space from an adjacent property, which is one of the reasons for the setback standard.  Staff does not support this alternative.

All costs associated with this request are the responsibility of the Applicant.

Staff recommends approving the request for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement.

Motion to adopt Resolution #17-11-280 granting a variance for the proposed addition to encroach into the rear yard setback at 15395 Armstrong Blvd NW.