Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/09/2014

Home

feet) compared to what had been previously proposed (24' x 40', 960 sq. ft.). The Applicants have also shifted the proposed location toward the home somewhat, providing further separation from the bluff line. The revised dimensions and location result in the Building being approximately thirty (30) feet from the bluff line, which does comply with the minimum required bluff line setback. While the proposed Building would now meet the bluff line setback, in reviewing the Property in more detail and cross referencing the lot dimensions on the 1977 Certificate of Survey, it appears that the setback from the OHWM would actually be about sixty (60) feet, not the sixty-five (65) originally indicated on the Applicant's site plan. It is noted that the primary concern of the Commission at the previous meeting was the structural integrity of the building due to its proximity to the bluff line. It appears that the current proposed location alleviates this concern. The proposed front yard setback remains twenty-four (24) feet, as originally proposed. While the OHWM setback is significantly deficient of the required 150 feet, it is worth noting that there is a significant grade difference between the river and Building location and there is existing vegetation that does provide some screening as well. While it is possible that the Building could be seen from the river, at best it would likely be an obstructed view. The Applicant has agreed to install a couple of evergreen trees between the Building location and the bluff line to further screen the Building from view from the river. There are challenges to locating a detached accessory building anywhere on this Property. It would likely require either a variance to the setback from the OHWM of the Rum River or need to be located directly in front of the existing home, and the latter option is not desirable for the Applicants. Furthermore, the four (4) closest neighbors have all submitted comments supporting the proposed location contingent on the exterior finish of the Building being the same general appearance as that of the home. The details of the request have been forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as a courtesy (while they no longer have certification authority over variances, they are the agency tasked with oversight of the Wild and Scenic River Rules). The DNR was not supportive of the initial variance request primarily due to the proximity to the bluff line, but also due to the diminished setback from the OHWM. As of the writing of this case, Staff has not received any further comments or feedback from the DNR on the revised request. Alternatives Option 1: Adopt Resolutions #14-10-200 and #14-10-201 granting a variance to the minimum required setbacks from the OHWM of the Rum River and from the front property line. While the request still requires variances to two (2) standards in City Code, the Applicants have revised the dimensions of the Building and shifted the location of the Building slightly in an attempt to provide further separation from the bluff line. The revised location does now meet the minimum required bluff line setback of thirty (30) feet. Additionally, the Applicants have agreed to install certain features to help manage stormwater runoff from the new building, including rain gutters and down spouts (directed away from the bluff line and adjacent properties). Additionally, the Applicants have agreed to installing at least two (2) native evergreen trees between the Building and the bluff line for additional screening from the river. Staff supports this option. Option 2: Deny the request for a variance to deviate from the minimum required setbacks from the OHWM of the Rum River and the front property line and pursue an alternative location in front of the home. The proposed Building would comply with the general standards for a detached accessory building and the revised dimensions and location result in compliance with the bluff line setback, which had been Staffs greatest concern with the original request. Finally, the proposed location is more inconspicuous for the neighborhood than any alternative location. Thus, Staff does not support this option. Funding Source: All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility. Recommendation: