PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Resolution #19-173 Issuing a Variance to the Setback Requirements for 14877 Quintana Circle NW; Case of Cody and Gretchen Hoeft

The City has received an application from Cody and Gretchen Hoeft (the "Applicant") for a variance to the setback requirements for an accessory structure at 14877 Quintana Circle NW (the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) as part of the Riverstone Development. This PUD has a required setback of twenty five feet (25') from the rear  and side (corner lot) property boundaries. The Applicant proposed to construct a deck that would be approximately fourteen feet (14') from the closest property line. The Subject Property has an unusual property boundary, that when combined with the design of the home, creates a practical difficulty as the Applicant would not be able to construct an attached deck anywhere else on their property. The deck would be no closer to Rabbit St NW than the house currently sits, which is consistent with the neighborhood.

Notifications of this proposal were sent via Standard US Mail to Property Owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property, as reflected by Anoka County Property Records. A notice was also published in the Anoka Union Herald, the City's official newspaper, for the August 1, 2019 Planning Commission.

General
The Applicant is proposing to construct a fourteen foot by twelve foot (14'x12') deck attached to the rear of the home on the property generally referred to as 14877 Quintana Circle NW. The distance from the property line is less than what is required by the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations of Riverstone, 25 feet. Because of this, a setback variance is required for the execution of a building permit.

The Applicant is seeking a variance due to the practical difficulty caused by circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. There is an awkward property boundary that does not allow for the Applicant to construct a deck because it would not meet the setback requirements as set by the Planned Unit Development. It should be noted that this model of home is designed for the future addition of a deck, as can be seen by the inclusion of a sliding glass door on the upper level. The surrounding properties are all able to construct a deck attached to their rear yard that would meet all setback requirements set by City Code. For this reason, Staff does feel that the request is a reasonable request that will not change the character of the neighborhood. Additionally, the situation is uncaused by the landowner; the property has an irregular boundary, as well as a landscape easement onsite.

Zoning
The property is currently zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). The surrounding properties to the north and south are also zoned PUD. The property to the east is zoned as E-3 Employment District, but the lot is currently vacant. An agreement between the City and the PUD set the minimum front, rear yard, and side yard setbacks for corner lots for accessory structures (including decks) to 25 feet.

Streets and Access
The Subject Property gains access off Quintana Circle NW. There is an existing driveway from the principle garage on the Subject Property to Quintana Circle NW.

Easements
There is a twenty foot (20') landscape easement present on the property as enacted by the current Home Owner's Association. This landscape easement does create a buffer between the Subject Property and Rabbit St NW. This easement is unique to the property and Staff believes that the deck will appear to be built the same as the neighboring properties, due to the unique lot line and the landscape easement.

Alternatives
Alternative 1: Approve the variance request. This would allow the homeowner to build a deck off the back of the home, which the home is set up for. The other homes in the neighborhood have decks, and staff does feel the property line presents a unique situation. Staff supports this alternative.

Alternative 2: Deny the variance request. Staff does feel the lot is oddly shaped and the deck is a reasonable request. Staff does not supportive this alternative.

The Applicant is responsible for all costs associated with this request.

Staff recommends approving the request for a Variance to the Setback Requirements for a Deck on the Subject Property.

Motion to adopt Resolution #19-173 Approving the Issuance of a Variance to the Setback Requirements for a Deck on the Subject Property.