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