Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2014

Home

the setback from the bluff line, and the setback from the front property line. The proximity to the bluff line is of greatest concern due to the potential for accelerated erosion of the top of the bank. There are challenges to locating a detached accessory building anywhere on this Property. However, it does appear that there may be an alternative location for the Building that would potentially only require a variance to the OHWM of the Rum River. The Applicants have been made aware of this but feel that that is not a desirable location for several reasons. First, it would be right in front of their front windows. Secondly, it is more conspicuous for the neighborhood as there is not as much vegetation in that area and could require the removal of a couple mature trees. Finally, it would result in a driveway coming across the front yard to connect to the existing driveway (fairly steep grade would to directly access the road). The City has received written comments of support from the four most immediate neighboring property owners. All are supportive of the proposed location contingent upon the Building being of conventional stick built construction with roofing, siding and stonework to match the home. 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? When considered independently of other factors, the proposed Building seems reasonable and within the essential character of the neighborhood. However, it could also be argued that there is already reasonable use of the Property with a home, three (3) car attached garage and an in -ground swimming pool. Furthermore, the reduced front yard setback is less than that even of the R-1 Residential (MUSA) zoning district, and thus, it could be argued that that is not in alliance with the essential character of the neighborhood either. The Scenic River Land Use District does result in circumstances not caused directly by the landowner. Alternatives Option # 1: Deny the request for a variance to deviate from the minimum required setbacks from the OHWM, the bluff line, and the front property line at the current proposed location and pursue the alternative location proposed by Staff. While the proposed Building would comply with all the general standards for a detached accessory building, the proposed location just does not seem suitable, as evidenced by the need for three (3) different deviations from City Code requirements. Additionally, it appears that the Applicants do have reasonable use of the Property, considering the existing improvements (home, 3-car attached garage, in -ground swimming pool). While potentially less desirable for the Applicants (and possibly neighbors), there may be alternative options that could be considered to address their desire for additional storage space that would require fewer, or no, deviations from City Code. Option #2: Adopt Resolutions #14-09-176 and #14-09-178 granting a variance to the minimum required setbacks from the OHWM, the bluff line, and the front property line for construction of a detached accessory building. The proposed location is supported by the four (4) closest property owners, contingent upon the Building being a conventional stick built structure with siding, roofing and stonework to match the home. If the request is to be approved, consideration should be given to requiring additional features to minimize impact to the bluff line and limit/reduce stormwater runoff. This could include requiring the use of gutters and downspouts to direct water away from the bluff line, use of rain barrels or other stormwater management practices, and the planting of additional trees between the Building and the bluff line. Given that the site plan is a hand -sketch from the Property Owner and not surveyed, Staff would recommend that a Certificate of Survey be required to be filed with the request to ensure that the proposed site plan is accurately drawn. As a reminder, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity rather than an advisory board when considering a variance request. Funding Source: