PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a Variance Request to Allow an Addition to an Existing, Detached Accessory Building Nearer the Front Lot Line than the Home at 17630 Nowthen Blvd NW (Project No. 18-157); Case of Richard and Shirley Watson

The City has received an application from Richard and Shirley Watson (the "Applicant") for a variance to allow an addition to a detached accessory building to be nearer the front property line than the home on the property generally known as 17630 Nowthen Blvd NW (the "Subject Property").  The Subject Property is approximately 1.70 acres in size and City Code restricts the siting of detached accessory buildings to the side or rear yard of a lot when under two (2) acres in size. The existing building is 728 square feet, and the proposed addition is 728 square feet; the proposed building would be 1,456 square feet.

Staff attempted to notify all property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property of the requested variance via standard U.S. mail and published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Anoka County UnionHerald.

The Subject Property is zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA) and is surrounded by parcels in the same zoning district, with the exception of the parcel to the northeast, which is zoned Public/Quasi-Public and contains a utility substation.  A portion of County Ditch No. 27 traverses a portion of the Subject Property, which results in much of the rear and side yards being within a General Floodplain (floodway and flood fringe designations have not been determined).  Without the completion of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, the General Floodplain is treated as floodway, which prohibits siting new buidlings withihn this area.

There is no attached garage on the Subject Property so the existing detached accessory building serves as the primary garage.  The Applicant is proposing an addition to the front of the existing detached accessory building, bringing it approximately thirty (30) feet closer to the front property line than the home.  However, the minimum required setback in the R-1 Residential (MUSA) district is thirty (30) feet and the proposed addition would still be approximately 100 feet from the front lot line.

There are currently four (4) detached accessory buildings on the Subject Property.  City Code does limit the number of detached accessory buildings permitted based on the size of a property.  The Subject Property is limited to three (3) total detached accessory buildings.  However, at the time that the detached garage was constructed (1973), and up until the early 1990s, based on the size (728 square feet), City Code did not consider it an accessory building.  Additionally, two (2) of the other detached accessory buildings are affiliated with an in-ground pool that was installed in 1977, well before limits on the number of accessory buildings.  Since the request is to add on to an existing building, Staff is comfortable addressing the total number of accessory buildings on the Subject Property as part of this variance request.

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 addition to the detached accessory building is a reasonable use in a residential district.  The need to expand toward the road (in front of the home) is the result of floodplain in the side and rear yards of the Subject Property.   The existing detached accessory building already sits slightly forward of the home on the adjacent property to the south and the addition would still be well beyond the minimum required front yard setback, so the proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the locality.

Alternatives

Alternative 1: Adopt Resolution #18-227 granting a variance to allow an addition to an existing, detached accessory building nearer to the front property line than the home on the Subject Property.  Based on the floodplain designations in most of the side and rear yards of the Subject Property, there are not any other viable options.  The proposed addition would comply with all other regulations pertaining to accessory buildings (square footage, height, exterior finish, etc.).  Staff supports this alternative.

Alternative 2: Deny the requested variance.  The Applicant is not proposing a new, stand-alone building but rather an addition to an existing accessory building.  The proposed addition appears to comply with all other standards and is well beyond the minimum setback requirement for the zoning district.  The floodplain designation essentially eliminates any other location options on the Subject Property.  Staff does not support this alternative.

The Applicant is responsible for all costs related to this request.

Staff recommends adopting Resolution #18-227 granting a variance to allow an addition to an existing detached accessory building to be nearer the front property line than the home on the Subject Property.

Motion to adopt Resolution #18-227 granting a variance to allow an addition to a detached accessory building to be nearer the front property line than the home on the Subject Property.