HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Variance Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to Deny a Five Foot Side Yard Setback Variance to Allow the Construction of as 12' by20' Third Garage Stall1 3
jonglas pau,( opts pazTnbw u sell pun IuTluapiso - d xlisuocl mo I - g pauoz sT Xpodozd loofgns atls •ouil XljadoTd
Isua aul uroz3 Iaa3 L slis aSu.rei 2utlstxa aIp smotls Aan.ms sluroilddu o '05R MS Ilels - oml 9UITsixa �slutnilddu
aul JO apis lsuo oql uo liuls aSureg pznll u ppu put ozTs uT laa3 orenbs OtZ Io ,OZ Xq ,ZI ag pinom uoilippu
a &uxeS posodozd azll •3Iouglas piuK opts "Ioo3 0I pa.iinboz aul olul laa3 anij gouozouo IlliA uoillppn asuzus
aul `spnputis )Iougjos I - 2I oRl of suuo3uoo uotlippL oTuoq auI ol!gM •auroq sjuuoildde otpjo va.re SUTATI alp
of uoilippu aluandos e sopnloui luul loo foid uoTsuedxo joSml n3o wd XIlunlou sT uollippu aiinre pasodozd 0111
•ToulsT(l IurluapisO -d Xlisu3G mo `I --a otp zo Xf mdord Ioofgns otll of soilddu Wul aouulsurnono onbiun
B aluzTsuourap of ITej Xatlj `}Iaeglas pzuA apis Ioo3 ang u 30 ldaouoo ImQuas gqj poddns saldurexa asQgl alt M
`a.IOJQ.IggZ 'Qlld Iluzano aul l ied st uoTsuipgns goeo .103 spnpuels s)louglos i?uua33ip sriq uoium `.zoouuang
.To `s3louglas pzeX apis 1003 and QAUq oI SOSUnS snnotle uoium `sit ?H XlurTOD Iatjlia uT paluooj we s)loeglas Ioo3 0
ueul ssol qlim aouazajoi XQigl soipodoid au1 Ilu `uoilippe ul ` •spiooai Xlto uodn posug spmpuels 31orgjas pnK apis
loo3 0I aul loom sza3i000g oql Aq polsil soldumxo a2urei IILls - obxgl atll3o Iiu Tool a.remu aq pinogs liounoo 0111
•(uol2uTUUn3 jo AI!D alp uroz3 spmPuuls sutuoz patloullr aas) Ioulsip luiluopisaa XI!U -MJ
alBuis Tia1ll uT 3Iouglas prey apis loot xrs u smolle uol2uiuuu33o XI!D 3 1ll olou Xa1ll Xlltuid - (walla, pogoullu
aas) szogtpiau ft unozms iiagi Luoij aoueuun aul .zo3 :poddns olio Xogj `tilmo3 (slsii Pauoullu aas) s3iouqjas
10010 1 uLul ssol TIITm IunotuosoZl jo sIied zatllo uT sauroq OZ Pue sa2exsg Iiels -ao qj tplm luauzdolanap .Tiaul uT
souToiq zalllo g I olio Xojp `pu000S •(antluunu palloullu aas) a5u.Iui pue osnoq 2iuTlsixo .zlc)gi3o uoTlisod aul uanid
`uoilippu QSUM5 Oql .I03 uoTleool anTluulalle niglo ou sT azogj Iuul sT dTtlspjuq .110TH a lul s s Qqj ` j
uoisioap zialll 2?uivw uaTlm .Iapisuoo ( Iln3 I OU Pip p -II'og Oqi luul saouelsuznomo o to azalll loa3 slueoilddn aTIZ
•liounOD XI!D aril of uoisioap sTgj SuTleaddu mou azn siueoTldde Qql •molog
pauillno put 33u1s Xq polio s .2urpurs oqi uo posuq SuTlaaul £OOZ `8Z �ag0lop zialll Iu aoueiInn stTII AUQp of O -�
palon sluauusnfpV puu sluaddV 3o p.Ieog oql 'Iiuls a &uzeS piligl u 3o uolloTUlsuoo aql mollu 01 aounuun 31oeglas
pxeX apis Ioo3 ang u futlsonbw are IsaM laa IS g l zaddI18L8£3o `.Ia3l33o9 uaVOG Put 1100S `slueoijdde oiLL
�xV�I�Ins
Iuiluopisag XIlsua(I mo'l `I-Nd :2uiuoz luounD
leiluopisaqj uugzn `Un :91saCl weld opino •duroo
I :sio-I 3o .IagTunN
ioo j aaunbS 00t`ZI zo soioV 8Z'0 :sazoV ui voxv
IsaM IaaalS p 6t7I .zaddn 8L8£ MolluooZ
10313Dog uuVaQ Put UO3S :luu oilddV
.spzuput,IS 2?uluoz Iutluopisod XI!U-Md
3 12uiS s,uo)Buiuue33o XliD `szoggf ?ioN uioiq
szolla7 `anile. JvN s,IuuoilddV `jzoda2I33qS
:AU QUAOHcldV `uLId 2 uipling ` ,KanmS `dLW uoiluoo-j oliS :S.LNaN]gDV,L.Lv
°` Id IuelsissV ` d H'I'V `tPutZ 2i
uosr ��g QVda2Id
'IIuIS
oft-wo P�Tiu,L ,OZ Xq ,ZI u3o uoiloTUISUOD
uuuaH oiIand aul MOIIV oI aouuuun 3 IauglaS PTeA aPIS TOod
anlJ u XUQ(l of sluauTlsnfPV pue sluaddV 3o
W0I132tS VQm:lov pxeog aTll3o uoisioaQ ogjjo luoddV aouuuun :WgjI V(jNaf)V
£OOZ `8I .zaguranoN :alLIQ OuilaaW ITOUno� �Ii7
NOI,LDV x 0d AdVNI1If1S HALLIIDaX:l
Nflolvasoll do X,LIa
According to Section 14.2.G, there are five criteria to review when considering a variance request. After
weighing the information submitted by the applicant against these criteria, staff concludes that the applicants
have reasonable use of their property without the requested variance and have not demonstrated a hardship that
is unique to the subject property. In addition, staff concludes that the applicants could redesign their project to
reduce or eliminate the need for a five foot east side yard setback variance while still gaining some of the
additional storage space they seek. These conclusions are the basis for the findings outlined below and detailed
in the attached staff report dated October 23, 2003. While these options may be less desirable to the applicant,
they illustrate the potential for the site to accommodate some of the applicants' additional storage needs without
a variance.
Findings of Fact
1. The owner has reasonable use of the property based upon the current built nature of the site. The site
contains a single family home with the required 440 square foot garage.
2. There are options for gaining additional storage on the site that do not require the need of variance.
3. The subject property is sized large enough to accommodate both the existing house and the proposed
garage addition. However, the applicant chose to locate the house in the middle of the lot rather than
against the required 10 foot western side yard setback. This positioning limits their ability to expand
their home.
4. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property,
which do not apply generally to other properties in the same district that would warrant granting of the
variance.
5. Strict or literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property in
a manner similar to other owners in the same district.
Given the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny the variance request and the findings outlined about, staff
recommends that the City Council uphold the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny the variance request.
However, should the City Council choose to overturn the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision and approve the
applicants' appeal, staff recommends continuing this item until the December 2, 2003 City Council meeting and
directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact supporting the request. If the City Council agrees
with the petitioner that a five foot setback for garages is appropriate, then changing the required setback
standard within the R -1 District would be another option for addressing this issue rather than granting variances
on an individual basis. The Planning Commission, as part of the variance discussion, had asked that the Council
direct staff to begin to look at the side setback standards for R- I A district. However, staff is not recommending
any change to the current R -1 setback standards at this time.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution denying a side yard setback variance from 10
feet to five feet to allow the construction of a 12' by 20' third garage stall on the property located at 3878
Upper 149' Street West based on the information and findings in the staff report dated October 23, 2003.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2003 -
A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO DENY A VARIANCE
REQUESTED BY SCOTT AND DEANN BOECKER FOR
3878 UPPER 149 STREET BASED UPON 'FINDINGS OF FACT
WHEREAS, the Planning Department of the City of Rosemount,received an application from
Scott and Deann Boecker. for approval of a side yard variance for 3878 Upper 149 Street; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2003, the Board of Appeals & Adjustments of the City of
Rosemount reviewed the side yard variance for 3878 Upper 149 Street and recommended
denial; and
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2003, the City Council received a letter of appeal of the Board of
Appeals & Adjustments decision from Scott and DeAnn Boecker; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2003, The City Council conducted a public hearing to hear the
appeal of Scott and DeAnn Boecker,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
Upholds the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments to deny the side yard variance
requested by Scott and DeAnn Boecker based upon findings of fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The owner has reasonable use of the property based upon the current built nature of the
site. The site contains a single family home with the required 440 square foot garage.
2.. There are options for gaining additional storage on the site that do not require the need of
variance:
3. The subject property is large enough to accommodate both the existing house and the
proposed garage addition. However, the applicant chose to locate the house in the middle
of the lot rather than against the required 10 foot western side yard setback. This
positioning limits their ability to expand their home.
4. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
subject property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same district that
would warrant granting of the variance.
5. Strict or literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of the use and en_ joyment of
his property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district.
RESOLUTION 2003 -
ADOPTED this 18 day of November, 2003, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
J
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
2
_0 ' d lH101
tart •°� �+w►r+;w Mrr "4 s
�.. ►ua" 2rrr t6- r o -LO. p'iO
f H �' W13� .ap�r„aci„, rw�wu w slaw w� �a► .�.+�t
.` Q Q Oy 1 P""*id + fn# 4 kwo lTYl
p!l# WWfQl4at POAI ► A +faun ra Ow Aq pa»dwd
` N,,,,.` .� gA► uadu �o +r�Ea'�a+vnt �t413ay� Nluso A04*4
, �� i � M111 blliUgrlria�� +',`)ti
`��� � , M c.c sr•b�K �111a
'noa2rcR Pa�('v'zs se•e acno� �,
dcsd Q ; UOM mot ®TI 6ttT"ff oS tY
pi pl=im -2 a 0- 4 aUTPsocaa.
cRtf DtG.LLZ'TD�i13YJ £' +(�oTB �Z '�o'I �•yy
{1�
y 7 jiy S 1
XI
,tSb Yam � l r ye• C ��
,o9
IAJ
IL
• � •a>aT� soot; s6Bx,Qb p�aode�d `t� �.'�Sy � +�
ua•t��oa'[a p+asrOC'�oxd .► � op . � �_,
uot�p n 40dw SuTl sTX7 bk MCS- St' - `gw
, 4uQR=Tjc Q •dTd
�aa� p •, 4ZUT T eaT4 XtS A d'.7dd/')
4. .3 B, OARAu
yettt►i��t O wsl _
•)M UOi.umnt 4►tr1
ZNVMH36 'N tivW130
r+�` °.,tii .r..'•i; - "�, I'r Lcrss Nil 'a'tTT�? znH•..
— 10 1
20'
12'
ao' r `�
A
Upper 149th St.
Designed By' Bruce Schweich Design / Quality 1 'Service 1 Trust �� ate: 04/04/03
David DAVID SCHWEICH CONST. David Sch"kn const assumes no PLANS FOR:
21716 KENRICK AVE. responsibility for structural or dimnsionai rrrors Scott '& DeAnn Boecker
FSC LAKEV ILLS, MN. 55a4A a omi mLw * and che m ck and r or hoe 459 -3222 owner io rRy and check al notes. 3878 Upper 149th St. W. PHONE: didimens , details, tlevatlons sections and
CONSTRUCTION INC. i FAX: (952)469 -3920 floor plans prior to me smn of construction and Rosemount, Mn. 55068
�P LIC.�f 20262622 be responsible for rt,o same. 651 - 322 - 4010 —
www. brute (gdavidar.hwelchconstrucdon.com P
N
74'
— 10 1
20'
12'
ao' r `�
A
Upper 149th St.
Designed By' Bruce Schweich Design / Quality 1 'Service 1 Trust �� ate: 04/04/03
David DAVID SCHWEICH CONST. David Sch"kn const assumes no PLANS FOR:
21716 KENRICK AVE. responsibility for structural or dimnsionai rrrors Scott '& DeAnn Boecker
FSC LAKEV ILLS, MN. 55a4A a omi mLw * and che m ck and r or hoe 459 -3222 owner io rRy and check al notes. 3878 Upper 149th St. W. PHONE: didimens , details, tlevatlons sections and
CONSTRUCTION INC. i FAX: (952)469 -3920 floor plans prior to me smn of construction and Rosemount, Mn. 55068
�P LIC.�f 20262622 be responsible for rt,o same. 651 - 322 - 4010 —
www. brute (gdavidar.hwelchconstrucdon.com P
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Rosemount Planning Commission
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Rick Pearson, City Planner
FROM: Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P., Assistant City Planner
DATE: October 22 , 2003
RE: Boecker Side Yard Variance Request
PROPOSAL
The applicants, Scott and DeAnn Boecker, of 3878 Upper 149 Street West request a five
foot side yard setback variance to allow the construction of a third garage stall. The
proposed addition would be 12' by 20' or 240 square feet in size and add a third garage
stall on the east side of the applicant's existing two -stall garage. According to the
applicant's survey, the existing garage sits 17 feet from the applicant's east property line.
The subject property is zoned R -1, Low Density Residential and has a required side yard
setback of 10 feet:
I: • • J�7
The proposed garage addition is actually part of a larger .expansion project that includes a
separate addition to the applicant's home. While the home addition conforms to the R -1
setback standards, the garage addition will encroach five feet into the required 10 foot
side yard setback. The applicants state their hardship is that there is no other alternative
location for the garage addition, given the position of their existing house and garage (see
attached narrative). In addition, they cite support for the variance from their surrounding
neighbors (see attached letters).
ISSUE ANALSIS
Variance. According to Section 14 .2.G, there are five criteria to review when
considering a variance request. While weighing a variance request against these criteria,
there are two key issues for the Planning Commission 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 Appeals and Adjustments must approve or deny each request based on findings
related to each of the five standards. The City Council shall have the power to decide any
appeals. The five criteria used to weigh each variance request, along with staff's findings
for each, are listed below.
1. Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety
and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood.
Finding :_ The applicant claims that the affect of this variance request on the public
health, welfare and safety of properties in the immediate area is not an issue
because the surrounding neighbors have endorsed the proposal. While this may
be true, this standard applies to the broader neighborhood and R -1 Zoning
District. If approved, the variance would grant this property a lesser side yard
setback requirement than the other properties within the R -1 District. The Board
must recognize that this variance request could be typical of other requests in this
district and, should the Board wish to approve the request, must have findings that
make this situation unique. Otherwise the Board should be prepared for other
requests that would have similar circumstances, the difficulty in expanding to a
three -car garage without need of variance, and equal treatment of the requests.
2. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in..a practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Finding: Strict interpretation of the of the required 10 foot side yard setback
standard will not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Section
4.151, requires single family dwellings to provide at least two attached enclosed
garage parking spaces no less than 440 square feet in area and no less than 20 feet
wide in either direction. In addition, Section 6.51.5, requires that structures
containing this use within the R -I District be setback 10 feet from the side
property lines. The subject property has an existing two -stall garage which is
located within the required setbacks; therefore, staff finds that the applicant has
reasonable use of the property under the current conditions.
3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions- applicable to
the subject property, use or facilities that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
Finding: The applicant claims that there is no other viable site for the proposed
garage expansion given the location of their existing house and garage. By
comparison, staff finds that the subject property has sufficient width to
accommodate the proposed third garage stall had the original builder located the
home against the required west side yard setback. Currently, the house is located
16 feet from the western side property line. Had the original builder chose to
locate the house at the required _10 foot west side yard setback line, the applicant
would not need a five foot east side yard setback variance. While this situation is
unfortunate for the current owner, it does not represent an exceptional or
extraordinary circumstance or condition that does not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
4. Strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the use and
enjoyment of his property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district.
Finding: Strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance will not deprive
the applicant of the use and enjoyment of the subject property in a manner similar
to other owners in the R -1 District. First, the applicant has an existing garage that
conforms to the size and setback standards for the R -1, Low Density Residential
District. Second, the applicants could expand their existing garage up to seven
feet to the east without the need for a variance. While this would not
accommodate the applicants' plan, it would provide them with some of the
additional storage space they seek.
$. Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not a permitted
use in the zoning district in question.
Finding: In this case, granting the Boecker's five foot side yard setback variance
request to construct a 12' by 20' or 240 square foot garage addition will not
permit a use which is otherwise prohibited in the R -1 District. However, it would
allow this structure to be located on this site in conflict with the spirit and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan standards for properties the R-
I District.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings outlined above, staff concludes that the applicants have reasonable
use of their property without'the requested variance and have not demonstrated a
hardship that is unique to the subject property. In addition, staff finds that the applicants
could redesign their project to reduce or eliminate the need for a five foot east side yard
setback variance while still gaining some of the additional storage space they seek.
While these options may be less desirable to the applicant, they illustrate the potential for
the site to accommodate some of the applicants' additional storage needs without a
variance.
Given these findings, staff cannot support the variance request as proposed. However
should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance request, staff
recommends continuing this item and directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings
of fact supporting the request. If the Planning Commission agrees with the petitioner that
a five foot setback for garages is appropriate, then changing the required setback standard
within the R -1 District would be an appropriate recommendation to the City Council as
an ordinance amendment, rather than granting variances on an individual basis. At this
time, staff is not recommending any change to the current R-1 setback standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the variance for a garage addition from 10 feet to 5 feet for
Scott and DeAnn Boecker, 3878 Upper 149t Street West, based upon the following
findings of fact:
1. 'The owner has reasonable use of the property based upon the current built nature of
the site.
2. There are options for gaining additional storage on the site that do not require the
need of variance.
3. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the subject property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same
district that would warrant granting of the variance.
4. Strict or literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of the use and ^
enjoyment of his property in a manner similar to' other owners in the same district.
Scott and DeAnn Boecker
3878 upper 149" Street West
Rosemount, Minne
D
No V T 0 2003
November 9, 2003 By
Dear City Council Members,
We would like to appeal the decision made by the city planning commission on October 28 regarding
the side yard variance we requested. We feel there other circumstances that the planning commission
was not able to take into account and should be considered when determining whether or not to grant
the variance that we have requested.
We are asking for the variance to allow us to add a third stall, garage to the east side of our existing
garage. The proposed garage would come within 5 feet of our eastern property line. The zoning in our
development requires a 10 -foot setback from the property lines. '
Along with the garage addition, we are also planning an addition to our house. This addition will give us
the additional living and storage space, which we desperately need and also add to the value of our
neighborhood.
We have learned from the planning commission meeting that the purpose of the 10 -foot setback is
purely for aesthetic reasons. The utility easement on our property extends only 5 feet from our property
line and our proposed garage addition will be clear of this.
Unfortunately, we have no alternative for building additional garage storage. The position of the
existing house and garage allow no other location for our additional garage space. The third stall
garage is also needed to balance the appearance of the house with the addition. Without it, the house
addition will look unusual and off- balance.
Zoning regulations will allow us to surface the area along side our existing garage to the 5 -foot utility
easement. This would allow us to have additional storage space that is in plain view. We feel that this
would be a much less aesthetically pleasing option than a finished garage and would devalue our
property and the surrounding neighborhood.
Other areas in Rosemount do not require a 10 -foot setback. We have included a number of examples
where structures come closer than 10 feet to the side property line. In addition, we have found that
other cities have setbacks requirements less than 10 feet. Farmington, for example has a 6 -foot side
setback.
We have the full support of our neighborhood as can be seen by the numerous letters that we have
included. All our neighbors concur that they would much rather see a finished garage stall in our yard
than other less appealing alternatives and feel that the addition that we are proposing will increase the
value of the neighborhood.
Our family has grown to the point where we need to obtain more living and storage space. We love the
neighborhood that we live and desperately want to continue to living where we area We truly hope that
you will grant us this variance and allow us to improve our house and our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Scott and DeAnn Boecker ;�
Reason For Request
Our family of five is in great need of more living area and storage space. To remedy this,
we would like to build an addition to our home that will give us the needed living area as
Well as an addition to the garage that would give us the much needed storage space. The
third stall garage addition that we are proposing will come within 5 feet of our eastern
property line. With the easement on this side of our property being 10 feet, we will need
to obtain a variance to build this addition.
Unfortunately, there is no viable alternative for our garage addition considering our
existing house and garage location. We feel the house addition without the third stall
garage addition would make the house appear off - balance and would not blend in with
the rest of the homes in our neighborhood.
With the third stall garage addition in place, there will still be a space of 18 feet between
the garage and the neighboring house on the east side of our property. This should be
more than sufficient for emergency vehicle access and in addition, our houses are also
accessible from county road 42.
Granting this variance will allow us to use our property to its fullest extent and enjoy the
same use of our property as many others in our neighborhood. We have discussed this
addition with all of our immediate neighbors and none are opposed to it, but rather all
agree that the addition will add value to the neighborhood.
Neighbors Supporting the Variance Request
September 27, 2003
City Of Rosemount Planning Commission
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in regard to the garage and home addition that Scott and DeAnn Boecker are planning at
3878 Upper 149 St W. Our home is to the immediate east of their home, with our property being the
closest in proximity to the planned addition.
We have seen' the plans for the addition and feel that this addition will not encroach our property, but
will instead increase the value of our property. We feel that any other alternative (cement or gravel
parking area) would be much less desirable to have next to us when compared with a finished garage
stall.
Please consider approving the variance for Scott and DeAnn Boecker. If you have'any questions,
please feel free to contact us at 651 -322 -2319.
Sincerely
Jim and Patty Pouliot
3872 Upper 149 St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
September 25", 2003
To whom it may concern:
This letter is in. regards to the home improvement project that Scott and DeAnn Boecker
are planning for this October. We are in agreement with their need to build an addition to
their home. It will not only be a benefit for the Boeckers, but it will be an asset. to us as
well. We believe it will not only provide additional space for their growing family, but
will also increase the. property value of our home as well as the other surrounding
residents.
Please consider approving the permit for building the Boecker's addition. For any
questions or concerns please contact at 651- 423 -5198.
Sincerely,
Lynn and Brian Bross
3882 Upper 149 St W
Rosemount, MN 55068
September 25, 2003
City Council Members
City of Rosemount'
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Scott & Deann Boecker
Address
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Rosemount City Council Members:
We are neighbors of the Boeckers. We actually live across the street, and
have been neighbors for l l or so years. The Boeckers had informed us
that they wanted to build on to their home by adding on to their garage
and an addition on to their home.
Now they have informed us that all they can do is add on and put a
cement slab as their garage. Our view of their home is directly in front of
their home, and personally, we do not want this to*be an eyesore. We
would much rather look at a finished garage and home, than a slab of
cement with something parked on it out in the open. If you were to go to
other neighbors, I think that you would get the same response.
If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not
hesitate to contact us, we would be happy to be of assistance.
Sinc `rely
Steve and Gina Turner
14943Covington Avenue
Rosemount, MN 55068
651- 322 -2936
Jeff & Amy Rowe
14930 Crandall Ave.
Rosemozag MN 33068
Dear Rosemount City Council,
We are writing this letter in support of the variance appeal by Scott and DeAnn Boecker. We
realize that all cities need to have ordinances established for community safety and to maintain a
generally pleasant looking neighborhood and city. As the city grows and times change, many of
these ordinances can. become irrelevant or outdated or, as we think in this case, need to be
adjusted
The Boeckers are seeking to change the side yard setback from ten. feet to five feet The five -foot
setback would be consistent with other communities (such as Lakeville) in our area. As 1
understand, the ten -foot set back was established so as to maintain a more rural feel to the
neighborhood The rural: feel is no longer possible since Cub, and other urban retail, have built `
across the street from the Boeckers. I believe that the city needed to change the zoning in order
for Cub to move into our community.
The Carrolton II neighborhood (where the Boecker and we reside) is an established neighborhood
with all of the lots being populated for the last ten years. Most of the lots in our neighborhood are
82 feet wide. Very few of the homes are centered in their lots. For example, my house sits 12
feet from one side and 32 from the other side. The thought of putting on two additions (one 7
feet and the other 27 feet) is ridiculous. No one living in this neighborhood would attempt to
expand their homes to utilize their lots and exploit a five-foot set back. Since few of the residents
of our neighborhood would even consider any making additions to their home, changing the
setbacks now would not change the feel or look ofthe neighborhood
I am more concerned with the thought of good neighbors and residents of Rosemount moving to
neighboring communities simply because they can't reasonably expand their homes to meet their
growing needs. I have already seen one of my neighbors leave for this very reason. in place I
received new neighbors. These new neighbors have smoked marijuana in their garage, they leave
their dogs outside barking for hours, and they seldom mow their lawn. I .could go on and on but
this is not about them. In contrast, the Boecker's home and garage addition would enhance our
neighborhood in several ways. Their addition would help to block light pollution from the Cub
Foods parking lot This improvement would also help block traffic noise from County Road 42.
The Boeckers are good neighbors. They are simply looking for permission to improve their
lifestyle by adding additional space onto their house. This will increase the value of their home
and probably all of the other houses in the neighborhood (also increasing the property taxes that
they pay). All of the neighbors we have spoken with are in favor of this change. We are simply
asking the city to adjust the setback to meet our neighbor's needs.
Sincerely,
Jeff owe
...............
Ed Kropelnicki
14928 Covington Ave.
Rosemount Mn.
423 -2010
November 7, 2003
Mr. Mayor and City council members
I live north on Covington Ave. of the Deann & Scott Boecker and know what
it is like not to have room
for toys and bicycles in your garage, for I have a three car garage. I would
more like to see an added stall
Than shed in the backyard. And with a third stall you may get both of your
cars in so you don't have
To weary about you're cars being broken in.. I do not believe it would hurt the
look of the neighbor hood.
I wish you would relook at their plans.
Sincerely,, Ed Kropelnicki
November 8` 2003
Jeff and Laurie Wendel
14927 Covington Avenue
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Council Members;'
We are writing in support of Scott and DeAnn Boecker's variance. As residents of
Carollton H, we want to keep our neighborhood marketable. It seems reasonable that our
neighborhood would carry the same rules as many of the other neighborhoods in
Rosemount. Many of our homes began as starter homes with the hopes of increasing
their value with additions, decks, etc. We would hope that the council would have
regulations to protect unsightliness, yet allow reasonable growth.
Scott and DeAnn would like to build an addition and third stall to their garage. The
entire project would help keep their home uniform, increase market value, and allow
them to stay in their existing home. We understand that the garage is at question, but
they could add driveway space along. their existing garage and park a vehicle there.
Would it not be more appealing to the neighborhood, to have a vehicle in the garage, not
parked along side the house? This kind of thinking could only lead to- unsightliness.
We are in support of the variance for our neighborhood to be changed from ten to five
feet. We would like very much for our neighbors to remain in the neighborhood and
have some growing room for their families. We hope you will reconsider your ruling and
grant the Boecker's what they need to precede with their project. In the end, you will
retain great residents in Rosemount as well as give everyone the same ability to expand,
within reasonable guidelines.
Sincerely,
Jeff and Laurie Wendel
Re: the proposed addition to house at 3878 Upper 149th St W.
To Whom It May Concern:
We, as neighbors to the Boecker's, have no issues with the proposed changes to the house
at 3878 Upper 149 St. W. to include a 3 ra garage bay to the east side of the property.
Aesthetically, it would fit much better with the neighborhood than just an addition jutting
off the upper level, with nothing beneath it but a cement slab (which ironically the city
would approve).
In the past, we've been told that the easements between the houses are to allow for
emergency vehicles to be able to access the rear of the houses. However, there seems to
be adequate space between the Boecker's and the house to the west of them, and between
the two houses to the east of them, that all back yards could be easily be accessed. And as
an alternative, Co. Rd 42 to the south would provide better and easier access than trying
to maneuver emergency vehicles between houses anyway. And as far as utility vehicles
are concerned, there are no electrical or phone poles at the rear of the property that they
would need to gain entry for. Never in the 13 years that we've been residents at our
address has there ever been a need for these restrictions.
I truly hope the city will consider granting the Boecker's this variance, instead of just
sl ammin g the door in resident's faces once again, without just cause. In the past, we've
personally not found the city very friendly nor reasonable in dealing with various .
concerns, but that's another story.
j ncerely, evm and Deborah Lane
90 Upper 149 St. W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
651- 322 -2159
Homes in the Carrolton II development that have a third stall garage
■ .14946 Crestview
■ ' 3872 Upper 149' Street West
3868 Upper 149' Street West
■ 14950 Colorado
■ 14936 Colorado
■ 14894 Colorado
■ 14895 Colorado
■ 14879 Colorado
■ 14852 Colorado
14843 Colorado
■ 14838 Colorado
■ 14801 Colorado
■ 14714 Colorado
■ 3815 147' Street West
■ 14945 Crandall Avenue
14931 Crandall Avenue
14901 Crandall Avenue
■ 14928 Covington Avenue
Three -Stall Garages In Carrolton 2
f
�
I
V
4y.
F
r }
t t
fi
vl
}
jiw - A
y
t r;
r,
n
t
r
k
u
f
�
I
V
4y.
F
r }
t t
fi
jiw - A
y
t r;
r,
n
t
s;
s.� S.
t
r of
d ✓�'�'a 3�F
Homes in Rosemount that appear to be closer then 10 feet to the property line
■
13188 Crookhaven CT
■
13347 Cranford CIR
■
13354 Cranford CIR
■
13341 Cranford CIR
■
13335 Cranford CIR
■
13348 Cranford CiR
■
13431 Cormack CIR
■
13425 Cormack CIR
■
13235 Crusheen CT
■
13242 Crusheen CT
■
13258 Crusheen CT
■
. 4073 Evermoor PKW
■
4057 Evermoor PKW
■
4105 Evermoor PKW -
■
4121 Evermoor PKW
■
13983 Delta PL
13979 Delta PL
13975 Delta PL
■
13967 Delta PL
■
13963 Delta PL
�m
r:
1
�EJ
an I
0
a E
t a
4,
�'
v P �
y
1V - J -V. 1 \ - 1. LlJ VY LL'1V J11 1 1 \L J1LLil� 11I1Li L1rJ 1L�.Ll,.i1. rage 1 or 3
r
F 10 -5 -6: R -1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
(A)Purpose: The R -1 low density residential district provides for existing and future low density
single- family development with full public utilities.
(B)Bulk And Density Standards:
1. Minimum tandards:
S
Lot area h b o' , r\ o)
ne ' S
Single family10,000 square feet
Other17,000 square feet
Lot width 75 feet
Front yard setback 20 feet
Side yard setback 6 feet
Rear yard setback .6 feet
Height (maximum) 35 feet
Maximum lot coverage of all structures 30 percent
Net dwelling units per acre (maximum) 3.5
All standards are minimum requirements unless noted,
2. Accessory Structure Standards: Accessory,structures must be located behind principal
structure in the side or rear yard according to the following requirements:
Maximum size
Detached garages
Lots up to 0.5 acrel-esser of 1,000 square feet or
square feet of principal use
Lots 0.5 to 1 acrel-esser of 1,250 square feet or
square feet of principal use
Lots 1.0 acre +Lesser of 1,500 square #;�-
square feet of principal use
http:H66.113.195. 234 /MN/ Farmington /13005'Obb 00006000.htm 11/8/2003
£OOMEM uo smopulm io; ioleajo jepualeo Aq paluud
6epanlus 4 up p3 Rupsmy.L dupsaupahl supsaqj, dupuop� ,fepims
OF
pasoo uvH
' iD 'Svpum
uolsslwwoo
6uluue1d
Wwoo oau
3uTer8s uec[L
Wd 0£:9
V Maud Wd 00 :L
6Z
RZ
LZ
9Z
S7
f?Z
EZ
- llounoo
40 Wd 0£:L
AIu64}ny
uolssiwwoo
POd Wd 00:9
salllmn Wd OE:S
ZZ
IZ
OZ
FT
8I
LI
9[
AvU sutWIIA
pallsoue0 BUIUUeld
pasol0
IIeH �t0 'AeplloH
alo4M 9 4l 10
00
• ww0O Wd 00 :9
>6U. W
SI
t�I
�I
ZT
I
OI
6
43i wog
pabuego s63W
d8
1lounoo
� 0 Wd 0£:L
wwo� napa�{
961
uMOIuMOQ
QSI fiEQ UO11331q
AIUOyjnv
Wd 00 :L
POd Wd 00:9
",I * t �:l ( .i. R ''} ". ''T °T 9 "i 6`�d. S Z? t-'O
r -E a v >.v
A
t
£OOZlti6 l W SMoPu!/N1 X; .ro ;eaiO iepua}eo
dq Pa ;uud
OE
IE 0£ 6Z SZ LZ 9Z SZ
-. 6Z 8Z LZ 9Z SZ 4Z £Z
4Z €Z ZZ [Z OZ 61 :8I
-- ZZ - IZ OZ 61 81 LI 91
it 9l Sl, 4I El ZI '11
SI 4l El ZI lii OI 6
`01 - G 8 L.. 9 S 4
` 8 L 4 S b E Z
E Z I
L
-
S d Z. M, L - Nl: S
S 3 I M Z NL S
4002 ust
£OOZ holy
2h
I�
OF
6Z
8
su!Saq lalu!
paso10 IIeH
�( }10 - sew ;s140
uoop/ xun
uad0 lleH f1!O
u0lss1wwo0
6u!uue Id
Wd 0£ :9
wwo oa
O d
V Need Wd OO:L
L Z
9Z
FZ
ZZ
I Z
1punoo
A110 INd O£ L
A1uo43nb
uOd Wd 00:9
QZ
EI
81
LI
- 91
SI
f�I
popeau
A - penuguoo
6uueaH uogexe.L
uo[ss!wluoo
ui 43ru1 Wd 0£ :9
9 1 0 4M a4 ;1
6u!uueld
uo!ss!wwo0
•wwo0 Wd 00:9
Wd 0£:9
sa! ;!I! }f} Wd 068
I
zI
rI -
oI
6
pounoo
`woo •napad
Apo Wd 0£I
6uueaH
uM0;uM0a
Aluo4#nv
ollgnd uo!;exe
Wd 00:L
uOd Wd 00:9
ul y }mil Wd 0£:9
9
S
17
z
r
JauuvId dl-"Lr'uo
�00Z .mgwooaQ