Consider Variance Request to Place a Detached Accessory Building within the Required Setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Rum River at 15795 Juniper Ridge Drive NW (Project No. 18-123); Case of Rick and Diane Farrell

The City has received an application from Rick and Diane Farrell (the "Applicant") for a variance to construct a detached accessory building within the required setback from the Rum River on the property located at 15795 Juniper Ridge Drive NW (the "Subject Property"). 

The Subject Property is located within the R-1 Residential (MUSA) zoning district and is approximately 0.88 acres in size.  The surrounding parcels are also zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA) and are of a similar size too.  The Subject Property is within the Wild and Scenic Overlay District, which has additional standards aimed at protecting the scenic qualities of the Rum River, including a setback from the Ordinary High Watermark (OHW) and restricted vegetative clearing activities.

The Overlay District requires a setback from the OHW of 150 feet and thirty (30) feet from the bluffline.  Furthermore, clear cutting activities are prohibited within this Overlay Distict as well.  The home on the Subject Property is approximately eighty-nine (89) feet from the OHW.  However, it was constructed in the late 1970s and predates the standards of the Overlay District, meaning that is considered lawful, non-conforming.  There also is a 'pool house' on the Subject Property, which appears to have been constructed without a permit and encroaches into the OHW setback (about seventy-seven [77] feet from the OHW).

The Applicant is proposing to construct a fourteen by twenty-four foot (14' x 24') detached accessory building approximately seventy-two (72) feet from the OHW and greater than thirty (30) feet from the bluffline.  The proposed location would require the removal of several trees; however, the structure would be more inconspicuous from the street in the proposed location as it would be within the treeline. 

There is a Scenic Easement in favor of the City and Anoka County encumbering a portion of the Subject Property (as well as the properties to the east and west).  Staff overlayed the Scenic Easement with an aerial image for reference (see attached exhibit). It does appear that the proposed detached accessory structure may slightly encroach into the easement, however, without a survey of the Subject Property depicting the Scenic Easement and the proposed shed location, that cannot be definitively confirmed.

Based on the required setback of 150 feet, a variance will be required to place an accessory building anywhere on the Subject Property.  However, it does appear that there is space to move the location further back from the river, which would decrease the deficiency, a standard often applied when contemplating variances.  Other than the OHW setback, there proposed accessory building is in compliance with all other applicable standards.

City Staff did forward this request to the MN DNR for comments.  The DNR has stated that the proposed structure should at least equal the setback of the existing home so as not to exacerbate a nonconformity.  Furthermore, there is space to move the shed forward that would not require the removal of any trees and would reduce the necessary setback deviation while still complying with the local front yard setback.  Furthermore, that would more or less align with a detached accessory building constructred a couple years ago (with the issuance of a variance to the OHW setback) on the property to the west.

Alternatives

Alterantive 1: Motion to recommend approval of the requested variance conditioned upon the Applicant moving the location of the shed so that it is in line with the front wall of the home on the Subject Property.  While this may be more visable from the road, it certainly increases the setback from the OHW closer to about 120 feet.  Additionally, this alternative also appears to essentially eliminate the need for removing any existing trees and ensures that the shed is not within the Scenic Easement.  Staff supports this alternative.

Alternative 2: Motion to recommend approval of the requested variance conditioned upon the Applicant moving the location of the shed so that it is no closer to the OHW than the rear wall of the home on the Subject Property.  This would eliminate yet another non-conforming structure on the Subject Property as it relates to the setback from the OHW.  While this also would increase the setback from the OHW compared to the proposed location, there doesn't appear to be any reason why it couldn't be moved closer to the front lot line (ground is flat, no tree removal).  Staff could support this alternative.

Alternative 3: Motion to recommend approval of the variance as requested.  The proposed location of the shed would likely still be inconspicuous from the river based on the elevation change (about twenty [20] feet in difference from the water to the top of the bluffline).  However, this would require removal of several trees and would disturb the root systems of others, creating a greater possibility for erosion into the river.  Additionally, it is unclear, at least without a survey, whether the proposed location would encroach into the Scenic Easement encumbering the Subject Property.  Staff does not support this alternative.

Alternative 4: Recommend denial of the variance.  Based on the current setback requirement from the OHW, placement of an accessory building is not possible without a variance.  Installation of a detached accessory building is a reasonable use of a single family residential property and it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.  Staff does not support this alternative. 

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

Motion to recommend approval of a variance to the OHW setback contingent upon the accessory structure being located essentially in line with the front wall of the existing home on the Subject Property.