HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Request by Donald Flach
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting: May 24, 2016
AGENDA ITEM: Case 16-14-V Donald Flach Variance to
allow an addition to an existing pole building AGENDA SECTION:
that exceeds the maximum accessory Public Hearing
building size in a Rural Residential District
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6.a.
APPROVED BY: K.L.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Site Location Map,
Summary of Request, Legal Description,
Building Addition Plan, Setback Plan, Aerial
Images (x3), Building Photographs (x4),
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION to approve a variance to allow the construction of an
840 square foot addition to an existing accessory structure that exceeds the maximum
accessory building size allowed in a R1 Low Density Residential zoning district at 2100
Bonaire Path West.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, is being asked to consider a
variance request from Donald Flach, 2100 Bonaire Path West, to construct an addition to an existing
accessory building on his property that exceeds the maximum building size allowed in a R1-Low Density
Residential zoning district. Staff is recommending approval of the request based on the findings listed in
this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant & Property Owner: Donald Flach
Location: 2100 Bonaire Path West
Property Size: 12.53 Acres
Comp. Guide Plan Designation: LDR Low Density Residential
Current Zoning: R1 Low Density Residential
Current Use: Single Family Residential/Agricultural
The City of Rosemount has received a variance request from Donald Flach to allow an addition to an
existing pole barn at 2100 Bonaire Path West. The applicant is submitting this request after a substantial
portion of the addition has already been completed. Work on the building commenced earlier this spring
without a building permit and the City subsequently issued a stop work order for the project. In
conjunction with this order, Staff also pointed out that the current building is considered a non-
conforming structure because it exceeds the maximum building size allowed in a R1- Low Density
Residential zoning district. The applicant was given a limited amount of time to remove the addition;
however, he has instead elected to apply for a variance because he believes he meets the criteria for
granting a variance as specified in the City Code.
The existing pole building is 3,212 square feet in size, which includes the original structure built in 1990
and a smaller addition to the east side of the building that was attached some time later. The property is
currently zoned R1 Low Density Residential, and the maximum amount of area permitted for accessory
buildings in this district is 1,000 square feet. The existing building and addition are therefore considered
non-conforming to the present code, but are legal because the structure was built at a time when the
-Conforming Use Ordinance (Section 11-
11, 1-6) the accessory building may continue to be used, repaired, or replaced on the premises, but cannot
be expanded in any manner. The applicant is seeking a variance to add an addition of 840 square feet to
the structure, which is 840 square feet more than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance due to its non-
conforming status.
The applicant has provided a written statement to the City requesting permission to keep the completed
addition. The written statement includes a narrative addressing how the proposed variance meets the 5
required findings to grant a variance under the Ci.
BACKGROUND
The applicant owns 12.53 acres of land at 2100 Bonaire Path West that is surrounded by the Biscayne
th
Point 5
the east, and larger rural residential parcels to the northeast and north. Prior to 2002, the subject property
was part of a larger piece of land that extended south across what is now Connemara Trail. The southern
portion of the property was acquired by the Heritage Development Company in 2002 and developed into
thth
the Biscayne Point 4 Addition. As part of the platting process for Biscayne Point 4 Addition, the zoning
for this area (including the remnant Flach property) was changed from A Agriculture to its present
designation of R-1 Low Density Residential.
ara
Trail to the south. The house and accessory pole building were both constructed in 1990 when the
property was still zoned for agricultural use, and are located roughly mid-way on the parcel between the
two adjacent streets. Both buildings were compliant with City Code requirements when they were
constructed, and the later rezoning is what created the current non-conformity relating to the size of the
accessory building. The single family home and all other aspects of the lot are consistent with the R1
zoning regulations. The home and accessory building are accessed via a single driveway from Bonaire Path
that is over 600 feet in length.
When it was constructed, the pole building served as a storage shed for the agricultural activity taking place
on the site, which until 2002 included the growing of trees. While trees are no longer being sold from the
property, the applicant notes in his narrative that he is growing and storing hay from his and other
surrounding properties. He further states that the barn addition is necessary to provide storage space for
hay since he often needs to unload his wagons in order to continue bailing. In this case, he does not want
to store hay in the main part of the building because that area is used for the storage and repair of farm
equipment and machinery.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
parcels south of Bonaire Path and west of Akron Avenue that were part of a larger agricultural operation.
requirements, which did not place a limit on the size or number of accessory buildings on an active
farming site. The property has since been reduced in size and surrounded by development that is urban in
nature, including single-family homes and municipal facilities. The applicant would like to continue using
the property for agricultural uses, such as the raising and storage of hay, but acknowledges that the site
2
would likely be developed into a residential subdivision if it is ever sold.
As part of its review, the Board of Adjustment must evaluate whether or not the variance is reasonable and
would create practical difficulties for the applicant if not approved. In this case, the continued use of the
for this type of activity are much different than those associated with a single-family use. In particular,
bailing hay requires larger pieces of equipment to make and transport the bales, and likewise requires large
amounts of storage space to keep them dry and accessible. The overall size of the building is not out of
character compared to other agricultural properties within Rosemount.
Another significant consideration for a variance is the anticipated impact on the surrounding property, and
the Board of Appeals and Adjustments must find that granting a variance would not alter the essential
character of the locality. In this case, the current building is located a significant distance from any existing
homes, with the closest residential structure over 300 feet away. The building is also situated south of a
large grove of trees, with evergreen trees providing some additional screening to the west and south of the
that is 100 feet from
property and has been designed to match the scale and design of the existing building.
When the City approved the building permit for the accessory building in 1990, the permit included a
condition that the building could only be used for agricultural purposes. Consistent with this earlier
approval, staff is recommending a similar condition for the variance so that the building could not be used
for general storage or other purposes if the property is ever sold. The applicant has stated that if he ever
were to sell the property, he would do so with the expectation that it would be subdivided into a residential
subdivision similar to the neighboring properties.
Variance Standards
According to Section 11-12-2.G, there are five criteria for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to
review when considering a variance request. The five criteria used to assess
findings for each are listed below. While weighing a variance request against these criteria, there are also
two key issues to consider. The first is whether the applicant has reasonable use of their property without
the variance. The second is whether the project can be redesigned to eliminate or reduce the need for a
variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals must approve or deny each request based on findings related to
each of the five standards.
1. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance.
Finding: The ordinance allows for the continuation of uses that would otherwise not meet current
zoning standards when such uses were lawfully established but do not meet current zoning
requirements. In this case, the applicant has continued to use his property for agricultural activities
after it was rezoned to a low density residential district, and has proposed an addition that will
provide additional storage for this established use. The addition does not represent a substantial
investment in the property that would otherwise make it more difficult to redevelop the site for a
low density residential subdivision.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The Rosemount Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that land within the City will be
undergoing a transition from agricultural uses to residential in those areas that are guided for urban
residential development. The continued use of agricultural land until such time that it is
3
redeveloped for a more intense use is encouraged in the Plan, and the Plan does not cite any
specific inconsistencies between agricultural and residential uses. The proposed accessory building
addition allows the current agricultural use of the property to continue in a manner that is not
detrimental to future redevelopment of the property for a low density residential subdivision.
3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property.
Finding:
it can be sold in the fall and will further permit the storage of hay equipment within the main part
of the building. The 12.5 acre parcel is much larger than any of the surrounding residential
properties, and the building addition will allow the applicant to make reasonable use of the land
until such time it is developed for a more intensive residential land use. Without the variance, the
applicant would need to store additional machinery and equipment outside the accessory building,
which would be less compatible with surrounding residential land uses.
4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner.
Finding:
the few remaining parcels south of Bonaire Path West and west of Akron Avenue that have not
been developed into a residential subdivision. The rezoning of the property created the current
non-conformity, and took place after the applicant moved to the property. The situation is unique
and staff does not expect there are similar circumstances on other properties that would warrant
approving a similar variance.
5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The proposed addition is located in a
over 300 feet away from the nearest residential structure. The building is adjacent to a large grove
of trees that provides a complete screen from Bonaire Path West, and there are evergreen trees
around the remaining sides of the property that help reduce the visual impact in the other
directions. The size of the accessory building with the proposed addition is consistent with the
size of buildings on other agricultural properties in the community that are actively being farmed.
The proposed addition does not significantly impact the ability to subdivide the property in the
future in a manner similar to the surrounding uses.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed in the preceding section, Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments approve the request from Donald Flach, 2100 Bonaire Path West, to construct an addition to
a legal non-conforming accessory, provided the following condition is met:
1) The accessory building and any additions may only be used for agricultural purposes.
Finally, 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 three hundred fifty feet (350') 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.
4