PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for a Variance to Side Yard Setbacks for an Accessory Building on the Property Located at 6520 170th Ave NW; Case of Jeff Rieck

The City has received an application from Jeff Rieck (the "Applicant") for a variance to the required side yard setback for an addition to an existing, attached garage at the property located at 6520 170th Ave NW (the "Subject Property").  The proposed addition to the garage would be located five (5) feet from the eastern side property boundary of the Subject Property.

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within a 350 foot radius of the 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 Applicant would like to construct a twenty-four by forty foot (24' x 40')  addition to the attached garage that essentially would convert it from two stalls to a three stall garage (a portion of the existing attached garage would be removed as part of this project).  The purpose of the addition would be to provide indoor parking for the Applicant's vehicles as well as for additional storage space.  The addition would be serviced with a driveway and the exterior finish will match that of the home (Applicant will, as part of this project, be updating the exterior finish of home as well).  The attached garage presently is 440 square feet in size (20' x 22').  The Applicant had originally considered constructing a detached accessory building but, based on several provisions in City Code, found that that was not necessarily feasible.

The Subject Property is located in the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) Zoning District, is about 1.15 acres in size, and is a corner lot.  City Code Section 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings) states that on parcels less than two (2) acres, a detached accessory building shall not be located closer to the front property line than the principal building.  The home is setback approximately 100 feet from the front property line, which eliminates almost half the lot from consideration for placement of an accessory building.

The majority of the western and northwestern portions of the Subject Property serve as a collection point for much of the neighborhood's drainage.  This area was platted prior to the practice of encumbering these low spots with drainage and utility easements.  So while this low area is not encumbered with easement, allowing fill in this area would displace stormwater and potentially result in flooding of other areas and/or structures.

As a corner lot, the Subject Property essentially has two (2) front yards, and is subject to a forty (40) foot setback along Azurite St.  Additionally, the septic system is located south of the home and structures must be located at least twenty (20) feet from the drainfield and ten (10) feet from the tank.  Thus, between the drainage area and septic system, the western portion of the Subject Property is essentially eliminated from consideration for an accessory building.  While there is some potential space in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property, it would be preferable to reserve that area to serve as an alternate location for a septic system should the current system fail and/or be replaced. 

The Applicant is proposing to construct the garage addition such that it is five (5) feet from the side lot line, which is less than the required ten (10) foot setback.  There is no drainage and utility easement along this property line and the neighbor to the east that abuts this property has submitted a written comment stating that he is not opposed to requested variance.

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?

An addition to an accessory building (or the construction of a detached accessory building) is a reasonable use of the property, especially when considering the Subject Property is over an acre in size and only has a two (2) stall garage.  The Subject Property appears to provide drainage for a majority of the neighborhood and if that low area were filled in, it would result in water pooling in other areas and potentially cause flooding damage to another structure.  While a variance would allow for a reduced setback, based on the wooded setting of the neighborhood and the distance to the nearest adjacent homes, it does not appear that this would alter the essential character of the locality.

As a reminder, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering variances rather than a providing a recommendation.

Alternatives

Option 1: Adopt Resolutions #15-04-077 and #15-04-078 granting a variance to the minimum required side yard setback.  While the Subject Property is over an acre in size, there are limited options for adding an accessory building based on existing setback requirements (from lot lines and septic systems), the fact that a large portion of the Subject Property provides drainage for the neighborhood, and the position of the home (about 100 feet from the front lot line).  Additionally, the open area in the southeast corner of the lot, which could likely accommodate an accessory building, would preferably be reserved to serve as an alternate site for the septic system should the current system fail in the future.  Staff supports this option.

Option 2: Do not approve the variance.  This action would result in the Applicant modifying his plans to ensure that the addition meets the minimum required setback of ten (10) feet and/or would result in the Applicant having to construct a detached building in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property, eliminating that space from future use for an alternate location for a septic system.  The proposed addition (960 square feet) is not excessive for this size property and on most one (1) acre sites could be easily accommodated (either as a detached building or an addition to an attached garage); however, due to a combination of factors affiliated with the Subject Property, a practical difficulty does appear to exist.  Staff does not support this option. 

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

Staff recommends approval of the variance.

Motion to adopt Resolutions #15-04-077 and #15-04-078 approving a variance to the minimum side yard setback for an accessory building addition at 3520 170th Ave NW.