Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Brian Rohrebach Building Size and Setback Variances to Allow Construction of an Accessory Building EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting: January 27, 2015 Tentative City Council Meeting (If Appealed): March 3, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: Case 15-01-VAGENDA SECTION: Brian Rohrebach Building Size and Setback Variances to Public Hearing Allow Construction of an Accessory Building PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P. AGENDA NO. 5.a. Planner ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map, Aerial Photo, Survey, APPROVED BY: K.L. Accessory Building Plans, Wetland Delineation, Alternative Design Survey RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION 1. to deny an accessory building size variance from the ordinance permitted 1,200 square feet to 2,124 square feet. MOTION 2. to deny an accessory building front yard setback variance from the ordinance required 40 feet to 27 feet. SUMMARY Applicant & Property Owner: Brian Rohrenbach Location: 12485 Blanca Avenue Property Size: 30,586 Square Feet (0.7 Acres) Comp. Guide Plan Design: RR – Rural Residential Current Zoning: TR – Transitional Residential The applicant, Mr. Brian Rohrenbach, is requesting accessory building size and setback variances to allow construction of a 1,500 square foot accessory building. The subject property contains an existing 624 square foot detached accessory building and the applicant would like to construct a second 1,500 square foot accessory building. Together the existing and proposed accessory buildings would total 2,124 square feet or 924 square feet more than allowed by ordinance. In addition, the applicant plans to locate the th proposed 1,500 square foot accessory building 27 feet from the 125 Street property line or 13 feet closer than the 40 foot setback requirement. The applicant selected this location to maintain the required 30 foot setback from the neighboring properties to the east while placing the accessory building as far as possible from the wetland to the west. Staff recommends denial of these variance requests based on the finding that the applicant has not established a practical difficulty in complying with the zoning regulations and the variance request is based upon the property owner’s desire for more storage space and not any innate difficulty with the site. Further, the ordinance permits accessory buildings for any property in this zoning district and varying from the current standard would bestow a benefit not available to other properties in a similar circumstance, in this case a desire for additional covered storage. BACKGROUND The village and township of Rosemount merged in January of 1971. The merged Village of Rosemount officially became a statutory city in January of 1975 October 19, 1972. That Ordinance contained an R-1, Single Family and RM, Multi-Family residential zoning districts. The current Rural Residential district was established on September 9, 1989. Standards for these two zoning classification are detailed in the table below. The neighborhood was subdivided in 1962 and most of the homes were built between 1961 and 1971. The lots in this neighborhood range in size from 10,773 square feet to 45,156 square feet with a mean size of 22,522 square feet or just over one- half acre. ,567 square feet or 1.06 acres. Comparison of 1972 R-1, Single Family and 1989 Rural Residential Zoning Districts Lot Size Lot Lot Setbacks Category Width Depth Front Side Rear RR Platted 2.5 Acres* Rural N/A 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. Residential Unplatted 5 Acres* District R-1 - Single Interior 10,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 125 ft. 30 ft. 10 ft. 30 ft. Family District By comparison, the while their existing detached garage was built in approximately 1971. Therefore, construction of both the home and existing detached garage pre-date creation of the City (1975) and adoption of the first zoning ordinance (1972). As a result, the City has no record of permits authorizing construction of either existing structure. As noted above, many of the properties in this section of Rosemount pre-date creation of the City and adoption of the first zoning ordinance. As a result, some of the properties in the surrounding neighborhood, including the applicant, have received variances to allow expansions of their principal structure (home) ome and a three season porch. In 2006, Trent Eigner of 12645 Blanca Avenue (the property directly to the north) received three side yard setback va existing home and construction of a new three stall attached garage. And in 2009, Phil and Karen Casselman of 12380 Blanca Avenue were granted a side yard construction of a 2,400 square foot addition to their existing home which included a new front entry, first floor and a master suite, master bath, walk-in closet, expanded living room, office, and an additional bedroom on the second floor. It is important to note that these variances allowed reduced setbacks generally consistent with the structural setbacks in the surrounding neighborhood to allow additions to existing principal uses considered primary property rights for the applicants. The variances did not allow additional accessory building area, considered a secondary property right, as requested by the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant has an existing legal non-conforming 624 square foot accessory building and could construct an additional 574 square feet of accessory building without the need for accessory building 2 size or setback variances (see attached alternative design survey). The applicant owns three contiguous lots of record that do not meet the area or dimensional standards for the RR Rural Residential district. According to Section 11-11-6, such parcels are considered a single undivided parcel and no portion of such lots may be used, sold or subdivided in a manner that lessens compliance with the applicable area or dimensional standards. The purpose of this standard is to insure non-conforming lots in common ownership are not used or developed in a manner that increases the non- conformity. This policy is consistent with State Statute 462.357 which states any nonconformity may be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement but not through expansion. In addition, no parcel shall have an accessory use without first establishing a principal use. Therefore, be combined with the parcel containing his principal dwelling unit at 12485 Blanca Avenue. The subject properties contain a Manage 1 wetland as defined by the attached wetland delineation. this date to comply with the requirements of the plan. The subject properties were created in 1962 and therefore are not required to comply with the wetland standards. However, the Wetland Management Plan recommends educating property owners regarding the buffer and setback standards associated with the identified wetland and encouraging voluntary compliance. In this case, the Wetland Management Plan setback from the accessory building. While the subject properties are not required to comply with these standards, the planned location of the proposed accessory building encroaches the recommended wetland buffer and setback area. ISSUE ANALYSIS Variance Standards. City review of a variance application is a Quasi-Judicial action assigned to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Generally, if the application meets the review standards the variance must be approved. The standards for reviewing variances are detailed in Section 11-12-2.G of the City Code and are based on the standards set forth in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. In Summary, variances may be granted when the applicant establishes there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning regulations. A practical difficulty is defined by the four questions listed below. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, under the statute, the Board may choose to add conditions of approval that are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. The standards for reviewing a variance application and each are provided below. 1.Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? Finding: According to Section 11-4-3, the Rural Residential district, the purpose and intent of this district is to provide for a large lot rural residential lifestyle which is separate from and not in conflict with commercial agricultural activities. Within these districts, public sewer and water systems are not available and on site systems shall meet the city's minimum requirements. The minimum lot requirements and setback standards of this district support the spirit and intent of providing for a large lot rural residential lifestyle by allowing for a reasonable amount of accessory building area and appropriate setbacks standards for all property owners in the Rural Residential district. Therefore, staff finds the proposed variances from these uniform standards inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Rural Residential zoning ordinance. 3 2.Is variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The subject property is guided TR Transitional Residential by the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Transitional Residential section of the Comprehensive Plan, this land use designation is intended to transition between the rural residential area of northwest Rosemount and the urban development of greater Rosemount. Transitional residential areas are intended to receive urban services sometime in the future, while it may not be within the timeframe of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Development that occurs within the transitional residential designation is intended to have urban densities, but generally at a lesser density than the other residential land use designation. To this end, the City has supported setback variances for principal structures considered a primary property right. However, it has not supported variances for secondary property rights such as accessory building. Therefore, staff finds the proposed variances inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3.Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding: Staff finds the proposed 1,500 square foot accessory building does not put the subject property to use in a reasonable manner because it would grant the applicant additional property rights not enjoyed by other property owners in the Rural Residential district. According to Section 11-5- 2.A.6, accessory buildings in the Rural Residential district may not exceed 1,200 square feet or fifty (50) percent of the ground floor area of the principal building including the attached garage. In this case, fifty (50) percent of the ground floor of the principal building including the attached garage equals 1,123 square feet so the applicant is allowed a maximum aggregate total of all accessory buildings of 1,200 square. The applic-conforming detached accessory building. As a result, the applicant is allowed another 576 square feet of accessory building. As shown on the attached Alternative Design Survey, the subject property can accommodate a 576 square foot accessory building without the need for the proposed variances. 4.Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Finding: While there are size, shape and wetland conditions associated with the subject properties that limit development, these conditions do not prevent the applicant from established a principal use (single family dwelling) or constructing the maximum allowed area of accessory building(s)without the requested variances (see attached Alternative Design Survey). 5.Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Staff finds the requested variances would alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variances would allow construction of a 1,500 square foot accessory building 26.8 feet from th the 125 Street property line allowing the subject property an additional 924 square feet of accessory building not allowed on other properties in the same zoning district. In addition, the larger building th would be located 13.2 feet close to the 125 Street property line. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of both the accessory building size and setback variances to allow construction of a 1,500 square foot accessory building. This recommendation is based on the information submitted by the applicant and the finding made above that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a practical difficulty in complying with the accessory building standards of the Rural Residential district. The attached Alternative Design Survey demonstrates that the subject property can accommodate the maximum allowed 4 size of accessory building without the requested accessory building size and setback variances. While staff does not support the request, if the Board of Appeals finds merit in increasing the maximum allowable size of accessory buildings in the Rural Residential district staff suggests amending the standards district wide rather than granting a variance to allow the applicant an additional property right not enjoyed by other property owners. Finally, should the Board of Appeals choose to grant the requested variances, staff recommends including conditions of approval that are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. It should be noted that decisions made by the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant, the Zoning Administrator, a member of the City Council or any person owning property or residing within one-fourth (1/4) mile of the property affected by the decision. All appeal requests must be filed with the Planning Department within ten (10) working days of the action by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. 5