PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a Request for a Variance to the Front Yard Setback on the Property Located at 14950 Peridot St NW; Case of Tara Wostrel and Justin Linder.

The City has received an application from Tara Wostrel and Justin Linder (the "Applicant") requesting a variance to the minimum front yard setback on the property located at 14950 Peridot St NW (the "Subject Property") to allow a twenty-six (26) foot setback.

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 Subject Property is approximately 1.72 acres in size and is located in the R-1 Rural Developing District.  It is surrounded by other residential properties of similar size and also located in the R-1 Rural Developing District.  While the Subject Property is nearly 2 acres in size, approximately three quarters of it is encumbered with a drainage easement which protects a large wetland complex.

The Subject Property is within the plat known as Pineview Estates.  The building permit for the subject property was approved in April of 1989.  As part of the original review of the building permit, the then property owner submitted a drawing of the property survey which indicated a front yard setback distance of forty-five (45) feet measured from the front property line to the front line of the proposed home.  Upon construction, it appears that the home was sited with the setback measurement of forty-five (45) feet coming from the edge of the roadway rather than the front lot line.  The front lot line is approximately twenty (20) feet from the edge of the roadway.  This resulted in the home being constructed approximately twenty-five (25) feet from the front property line, rather than the forty-five (45) feet that was indicated.  This discrepancy in the location of the home was not identified during the construction of the home. As a result, the home was constructed in 1989 encroaching upon the front yard setback.

The Applicant has submitted a Building Permit Application to construct a ten (10) foot by sixteen (16) foot deck on the side of the home in accordance with the location of an existing patio door and deck header board.  Review of the Building Permit Application revealed the fact that the home was constructed within the forty (40) foot front yard setback (as the deck was proposed within the front yard setback as well).  The Applicant has applied for a variance to allow for a deck within the front yard setback and Staff has expanded that request to include the existing home and attached garage so that if approved, the structure would be considered lawful, non-conforming.

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?

A deck constructed onto a single family residential dwelling on the Subject Property would be a reasonable use of the property as the proposed deck would extend no closer to the front property line than the existing single family home.  The site plan submitted with the original building permit application for the home indicated a front yard setback of forty-five (45) feet.  However, when siting the home on the property the forty-five (45) foot setback was measured from the edge of the road rather than the front property line.  This was not due to actions of the Applicant.  The existing single family home has existed on the property since April of 1989.  As such, the variance for the home and proposed deck would not alter the essential character of the locality as the home has existed for twenty-seven (27) years.

Alternatives

Alternative 1.  Approve Resolutions #16-12-225 and #16-12-226 adopting Findings of Fact #0974 and granting a variance to the required front yard setback.  The site plan provided with the original building permit application indicated a forty-five (45) foot front yard setback.  In the field, that proposed setback was measured from the roadway rather than from the front property line which caused the home to be constructed within the forty (40) foot front yard setback.  The home currently is in violation of the zoning code; however, if a variance were approved, the structure would then be considered lawful non-conforming.  In addition, the construction of a 160 square foot deck does not appear that it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood as the proposed location is behind the front line of the home as it exists today and thus, Staff supports this alternative.

Alternative 2.  Do not approve the variance request.  While the addition of a deck would expand upon a structure which is currently in violation of City Zoning Code regarding front yard setbacks, it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.  As noted, the home has been in existence for twenty-seven (27) years and this encroachment into the front yard setback had not been identified as a concern until the Applicant applied for a Building Permit to construct a reasonably sized deck that would be accessed from an existing patio door.  The deck would not extend any closer to the front lot line than the home and thus, Staff does not support this alternative.

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

Staff recommends approving Resolutions #16-12-225 and #16-12-226 adopting Findings of Fact #0974 granting a variance to the front yard setback requirement (alternative #1).

Motion to adopt Resolution #16-12-225 approving Findings of Fact #0974 and Resolution #16-12-226 granting a variance to the front yard setback.