Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9. Jeff Johnson Appeal of Variance DenialCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: May 2, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of Board of Appeals & Adjustments AGENDA SECTION RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to uphold the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments. Decision - Johnson Variance for Accessory Public Hearing) Structure Setbacks: 3445 McAndrews Road PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA { ' ATTACHMENTS: P.C. Minutes (4 -11, 3- 28 -00); Findings; Survey APPROVED BY: Reductions; Correspondence; Topography Applicant & Property Owner(s): Location: Area in Acres: Current Zoning: Request: Required Setbacks: Board of Appeals & Adj. Action: Jeffery A. And Carol E. Johnson 3445 McAndrews Road 2.56 (excluding right -of -way) Rural Residential Variance to side and rear yard setbacks for an accessory st detached garage five feet from side and rear property line. 30 ft. both side & rear Denial of variance request (3 -1) SUMMARY Mr. Johnson's home is on the north side of McAndrews Road, between Chinchilla Court and Cobblesto property is dominated by a pond, steep slopes and trees. Mr. Johnson is requesting a variance to place a garage (detached) in the north east corner of the property, five feet from both the north and east property required setbacks are 30 feet for both. to place Lane. The 576 sq. ft. lines. The The property has severe limitations for building sites. Any site will involve extensive grading and a like y need for fill and retaining wall(s). The proposed building site has a slope gradient of about 30% which is very steep. The topography shown on the certificate of survey shows that other possible building sites have similar E lopes. Staff is of the opinion that there may be alternatives available between the house and the right -of -way fo McAndrews Road along the west side of the driveway that would not require a variance, or at least a lessor variance. A site inspection revealed a drive -way turn- around that was not included on the survey. This area may possibly be expanded to include enough area for the garage without creating the additional impact resulting from construction of a separate garage site and driveway. The only disadvantage is that it would be located in the front yard of the site. BOARD OF APPEALS & ADJUSTMENTS PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals & Adjustments discussed the variance requesi at length after hearing comments from the neighboring property owner, Ms. Johnson. The Board members discussed options for the garage closer to the house, yet still in the rear yard. Mr. Johnson indicated that he preferred the proposed location, and that an alternative location was not desirable. Two Board members indicated that the proposed location was "too much" of a variance. One Board member felt that the variance was justified because of the relative impact on s{nrounding properties, and the impact on trees. III RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to uphold the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 11, 2000 Page 4 I MO TI Droste to table action until April 25, 20 allow staff an opportunity provide addih l detail regarding the PUD ement. Seconded by Shoe- Corrigan. Ayes: Weisensel, 'nger, Droste hoe- Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Chairperson Dros�rec the ng at 9:15 p.m. for 5 minutes. Chairpers roste recessed the regular Planm Commission meeting and opened Bo of Appeals &Adjustments. (Cont'd. from 3 -28 -00) Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing on the application by Jeffery Johnson for a variance to setbacks for an accessory structure. This public hearing is continued from March 28, 2000. Jeffery Johnson explained the limitations for building sites on his property due to ste slopes and trees. He is requesting a variance to place a garage in the northeast comer of his property, five feet from the north and east property lines. The required setback is 30 feet. Mr. Pearson noted that steep slopes are characteristic of the entire site. He suggested an alternative location in the front yard, which would require a lesser variance. Mr. Pearson was unable to support the requested variance for the northeast corner. Chairperson Droste opened the Public Hearing. Sharon Johnson, 12445 Chinchilla Court, is a neighbor and expressed her strong opposition to placement of the garage in the front yard. This would be in direct view �f her house and would decrease her property value. If the garage were placed in the northeast comer, it would be out of sight. Discussions continued concerning alternate locations, including a site closer to the hoi ise. Mr. Johnson responded this site was initially preferred but, because of the severity of e slope, it required extensive grading & backfill and also involved the removal of 4 oak trees. This site would be more visible to homes across the pond, and he would be una 3le to back equipment into the garage at this location. Mr. Johnson explained the location in the northeast comer would allow the garage to be cut into the side of a hill, resulting it less visible concrete. i MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe- Corrigan, and Weisensel. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Commissioner Tentinger felt the variance in the northeast comer was too much, but would be willing to grant a lesser variance for the site closer to the house. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 11, 2000 Page 5 Commissioner Weisensel indicated his preference for the northeast corner location. The site next to the house would require the removal of trees. He felt that there are sufficient extraordinary circumstances to warrant the variance requested by Mr. Johnson. Commissioner Shoe - Corrigan felt the variance in the northeast corner is too severe and would not support it. MOTION by Shoe - Corrigan to deny the variance request on the basis that ordinance consistent alternatives are available. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Droste and Shoe- Corrigan. Nays: Weisensel and Tentinger. Motion failed. Commissioner Tentinger inquired whether the applicant would consider alternate locations, which may require a lesser variance. Mr. Johnson explained the rationale for the northeast corner. MOTION by Tentinger to deny the variance request on the basis that ordinance consistent alternatives are available. Seconded by Shoe - Corrigan. Ayes: Shoe- Corrigan, Tentinger, and Droste. Nays: Weisensel. Motion passed. r one nearing: Nullivan variance & Lot S hMombination Chai erson Droste opened the public hearing on the application by chael and Elizab Sullivan for a variance to lot frontage requirements an sociated lot splits and combina ' ns. The recording secretary has placed the Affida ' of Publication, Affidavit of Mailing d Posting of a Public Hearing Notice on file h the City. Michael Sulliv indicated he has gained ownership strips of land from adjoining property owners f6cdriveway access and to resolv the issue of a landlocked parcel. Mr. Sullivan traded a co sponding strip of land to a Bliss family. Mr. Pearson explained th ctions the need for a variance to to ont Chairperson Droste opened the MOTION by Droste to cl a the I Weisensel, Tentinger, oste, and to accomplish the lot split/combination and rds. hearing. There were no comments. c hearing. Seconded by Weisensel. Ayes: e3yorrigan. Nays: 0. Motion carried. MOTION by Sh - Corrigan to grant the v; Sullivan prope . Seconded by Tentinger. and Weisen . Nays: 0. Motion carried. to lot frontage standards for the Tentinger, Droste, Shoe- Corrigan, rpefson Droste closed the Board of Appeals & A4 eats and reconvened the Planning Commission meeting. i Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 5 Sarah Trachet, 4635 129' Street West, Apple Valley, wants larger lots in the northe transition area. She asked what the actual density is after excluding Birger Pond and protected wetlands, and expressed concern with outside storage of recreational vehicl s al \Park traffic on Diamond Path. Ms. Trachet presented a letter, which was ente At V. Msponded to density questions, indicating net density is 2.1 units r acre. Bi Wssed Diamond Path concerns. i Ty, 3800 Shannon Parkway, expressed concerns about th speed limit on Sarkw and the control of construction traffic. Mexplain speed li mit standards and indicated the ty and developer will e m address s eet issues and restrictions on constru on traffic. Chairperson Droste opeh� the floor to the Commissi ers. Commissioner Weisensel in uired about the dE Additionally, he pointed out tN roadway that i anything is being done to addres free flow. about the overhead wires and that ' approximately 24" in size. Commissioner Shoe - Corrigan inq impact to adjacent wetlands. Aly, allows a 30 -day comment pen , that no issues have been ide ifiec as per's plans for high- voltage wires trades into a wetland and asked whether Jelle responded they are talking to N SP .y plans provide for a concrete culvert, ai6d a'bqut the wetland application process and ,on Monikexplained the wetland application pr followed b the appeal process. She further inc I with adiaceik wetlands. Phasing of the develop nt was discussed. The de eloper expects a 10 -year ti for completion of the of ect. MOTION by Te ger to continue the public hearing 1 April 11, 2000. Seconded by Droste. Ay Tentinger, Droste, Shoe- Corrigan, and isensel. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Chairper on Droste recessed the meeting for ten minutes at 8 :50 p. j Ch ,X person Droste recessed the regular Planning Commission meeting *d opened e Bard of Appeals & Adjustments. Public Hearing: Jeffery Johnson Variance Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing on the application by Jeffery Johnson f Dr a variance to setbacks for an accessory structure. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication, Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of a Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 28, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Pearson indicated Mr. Johnson requested the public hearing be continued to allow him an opportunity to gather additional information. MOTION by Droste to continue the public hearing until 7:00 p.m., April 11, 2000, to allow the Petitioner to provide additional information. Seconded by Shoe - Corrigan. Ayes: Droste, Shoe - Corrigan, Weisensel, and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Chairperson Droste closed the Board of Appeals & Adjustments and reconvened the regular Planning Commission meeting. -son Droste opened the public hearing on the application by Danner Inc. for of a Mineral Extraction Permit. The recording secretary has plac the Affidavit ration, Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of a Public Hearing lice on file with the City. Mr. Pearson pr ented the application by Danner, Inc. for ren al of its mining permit. No changes are p osed for the current permit. The pe ' conditions are consistent with other mineral a action permits in the city. Discussions continued co erning truck activity. lid complaints have been received concerning this mining ope ion. Chairperson Droste opened the %Qfinxe to the described the mining activity and pplicant. A representative from Danner, Inca the amount of materials removed. Chairperson Droste opened the pu c h g. There were no comments. MOTION by Droste to close a public he g. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe - Corrigan, Weisensel, Tent er, and Droste. s: 0. Motion carried. MOTION b/.Seconded recommend that the City mineral extror Danner, Inc., subject to operation fo by Droste. Ayes: We Shoe - Corrig Motion carried. ancil approve the renewal of the attached draft conditions of el, Tentinger, Droste, and Chairpe son Droste opened the public hearing on the application b Henry Fox for an Agric tural Lot Split and Variance to lot area and sideyard setbacks. The recording s tart' has placed the Affidavit of Publication, Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of a Public Hearing Notice on file with the City. Mr. Pearson explained that Mr. Fox was instructed to arrive at the meeting at approximately 10:00 due to the anticipated length of the Kelley Trust public hearing. i i FINDINGS i The Board of Appeals and Adjustments and the City Council, upon appeal, must find a� follows in the granting of a variance from this ordinance: I 1. Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and safet� and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 2. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in a practical difficulty or unne essary hardship inconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Quide Plan. 3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable td the property, use or facilities that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. I 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. 5. Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not a permitted use in the zoning district in question. i J30 -1 -99 i I S87-%36.1 "W me 3445 McAndrews Road 1 / / Description That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, coo r ' Jr follows: B4egkaMg 19. mat the southwest scorner of sold Souutth�Hdf of the . Northwest Quarter, thaws N 871738* E. oewmled bmoring, along / • / _ / the mouth IAIO thereof, 310.00 fast; thence N 00'38'38' W. p"d 420.00 /. % N // - 1`~^•/ / / 41 / A / with the with the line the loofa• thereof. QDD thence t l0 71 736' W. -j / / ^•�` / therooa, thence S 0038'38" E. along the west line ther.of, ow 420.00 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to an movement to Dakota County for o road as dawn on OAROTA COUNTY ROAD RIGHT Of WAY YAP N0. 2, according to / the recorded map thereof. _ f / f hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by no or under my direct '�/ supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Scale: I"= 30' - --_._. "`�- '� Land .Surveyor under the laws of the stale f of neaoto. Date .,e.. -,tea _ .OISU - - -RSq. NO. 8140 e of the mf the ..Northw f -174 _.,I I , - -'° BRANDT ENGINEERING di SURVEYING M-c-4d- i W�� {�. - _ �_ �� 14041 Burnhoven Drive, Suite 114 _- _� - -- Burnsville. MN 55337 - - ... .._ _ _ _ w87 °'� -e ( 612) 435 -1966 I�f1_1_OQ Reasons that the Turnaround Garage Location is problematic: 1. CONSTUCTION FEASIBILITY a) The Turnaround Garage (TG) Location requires a greater vertical distance and more concrete block courses for the concrete block wall from the virgin soil to the garage floor. A 24X24 garage means that the vertical drop is 11'4" when accommodating parking in front of the garage, and 13'8" when accommodating backing a boat into the garage. A 28X24 garage requires an even greater block wall height. Meanwhile the vertical drop for the NE location is 5'6 ". b) We have a cracked foundation on our existing house due to our tall concrete block wall on the steep west side. A Soil Engineer said that we have pressure from fill on the inside of the block wall pushing out and only air on the other side. He recommended dirt/rock back fill on the outside of the block wall to counteract the uneven force (which we did). For the turnaround garage location this would require an immense amount of fill and take out more trees. c) The Contractors say that the project becomes very challenging and they are far less interested in working on such a "difficult" project. d) The vertical distance also increases the estimated construction cost by $11,000 to $16,000. 2. NEIGHBOR OPPOSITION/PROPERTY VALUE REDUCTION a) The TG location has a far greater visual impact on Sharon Johnson than the NE location. She said the garage would significantly reduce her property value and she would want lower taxes at a minimum. Sharon strongly supports the NE location. b) The TG location has a very material negative impact on our property value and taxes as well. From the driveway the garage would block the front view of our house. From our house we would see the tall concrete block wall and garage rising above it and this would block our view of our trees. 3. TAKES OUT MORE TREES a) The TG location takes out more trees (including the aspen cluster in the turnaround) than the NE location. 4. DRIVEWAY RECONSTRUCTION & DRAINAGE a) The TG location is difficult because the driveway drops 19" from the South to the North over the 24' width of the garage. This drop causes problems for having a level approach to the garage. We would probably be forced to redo a large section of the driveway. b) Problems would occur from drainage where rain water would go to the north where there is already significant flowage, rather than to the west. Driveway reconstruction would increase the angle up the driveway and snowy conditions would make getting up the driveway even harder. 5. REDUCED PARKING /TURNAROUND a) The TG location accommodates fewer vehicles than the existing turnaround with the garage in the NE. b) The TG location is far less convenient for turning around. Backing out at night is very tricky with the curved driveway, and it is less safe. 6. SNOW REMOVAL a) The TG location complicates snow removal. The area around the attached garage is very tight and a TG garage location would eliminate a very effective way to blow snow over the edge of the turnaround. It would result in more snow towards our house where we already have water /ice damming on our driveway in front of our house entry. *Continued Page 2 7. ELECTRIC LINES a) The TG location is near the high- voltage electric transformer. The TG location must take into consid( and the associated electric lines. 8. CONVENIENCE a) Visitors find our existing turnaround very convenient. this box ATTACHMENT B- REASON FOR REQUEST: BACKGROUND: We bought the property at 3445 McAndrews Rd, Rosemount in November 1999. We are planning to build a detached 28X24 garage for a tractor with a snow blade for our long driveway, and also for my fishing boatlhailer and my duck boathrailer. The lot elevation ranges from 972' to 930' and the only practical place for a garage is in the northeast comer of the lot as the information below shows. To determine the feasibility of the garage project, I pursued the following: 1.1 worked with Rick Pearson regarding the process and requirements. 2. I was informed by Allison Morris that there is no water level data on the pond at the north end of the property. It is my understanding that the steep slope precludes flooding concerns, and the real issue is to keep the wetland/perimeter area free of fill dirt. 3. I had Brandt Engineering do a survey to identify property lines and specific elevations. Julie Daugherty at the Dakota County Survey and Land Information sent topo data to Brandt Engineering to overlay the topographic lines on the survey. 4. I worked with 3 garage builders to determine a feasible location for a garage. 30' SETBACKS DIFFICULT DUE TO POND AND 30% SLOPE Unfortunately, building a garage with the 30' setbacks from the north and the east boundaries causes problems that would preclude construction: 1. It would be very close to the pond and it would require lots of fill near the pond. 2. The grade declines from 964' to 930' over the 105' distance from the northeast boundary to the pond, and the slope is over 30 %. 3. It takes out more trees. 4. It increases visibility of the garage. VARIANCE REOUEST• A Hardship Variance Petition is requested to alleviate the issues related to the 30' setbacks. A 5' setback from the north and the east is requested because it provides the best solution as follows: 1. The 5' setbacks best accommodates the steep 30% slope, and it minimizes the number of trees removed. 2. The neighbors to the east and the north of our property support the variance request and the closest neighbor is highly - opposed to alternatives. We plan to keep the garage as low as possible, by cutting into the sidehill to the east. The current plan is to cut the garage 30" below grade at the highest point, the SE corner of the garage. This keeps the garage lower and it is less visible to neighbors to the east, north and west 3. The 5' setbacks still allow a visual break based on existing vegetation on both our property and our neighbors' property. 4. The Contractors all recommended minimal/5' setbacks to make the project feasible. Due to the steep slope, a 10' setback adds at least two courses of block compared to a 5' setback and may make the project unworkable. 5. The garage makes for less "parking lot" clutter. 6. The color would be the same light gray as our house. This blends in with the snow in the winter, and it would not be very visible in the summer due to the foliagelvegetation and landscaping. i Variance Petition Continued Page 2 The 5' Setback from the North: 1. Keeps the garage farther back and means it is less visible to Sharon Johnson to the east, and it is in lino with her shed. 2. Provides enough room to back a boathrailer into the garage without having to take out the large doubl� oak on our property line next to Sharon Johnson's property. 3. Provides sufficient distance for a driveway to accommodate drainage around the garage and also from the area around our house. The driveway would need to slope downward going north starting from around our house and then slope up again towards the garage entrance. A shorter distance means a steeper slope downward and then a steeper slope back up to the garage entrance. (This driveway would be —10' from the eastern property line.) The 5' Setback from the East: The 5' setback from the east is also crucial. If the garage is farther to the west, it means: I 1. A huge amount of dirt hauled in to the west side which gets increasingly close to the pond. i 2. The farther the garage is moved to the west, there is more need for more vertical block courses. This 1 ves a very tall concrete block side wall that would be more visible across the pond to the west. The construction feasibility also becomes questionable as the garage is moved to the west. 3. There also becomes a greater need for a retaining wall (also visible across the pond to the west) to ac mmodate a driveway. 4. More trees would have to come down if the garage is moved farther to the west. 5. The farther the garage is located to the west, the more steeply the driveway is sloped. 6. The setback variance is supported by the neighbors and the alternative Turnaround location is highly okposed by Sharon Johnson, the neighbor directly to the east. i VARIANCE REQUEST - ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL Jeff and Carol Johnson -3445 McAndrews Rd Request & Background: Carol and I are requesting a 5' setback variance from the 30' Rural Residential setback requiremer 24X28 garage in the northeast corner of our property. The garage would be used for a tractor with for our long, steep driveway, and for my fishing boat/trailer and my duck boat/trailer. The varianc requested because the lot (almost 3 acres with the road and right -of -way) is very unique and a larg, unbuildable due to steep slopes, trees and a pond. I have spent considerable time and expense getting a survey, a topo overlay, working with builder: several Rosemount city officials, and talking to my neighbors to determine the most feasible, praci the garage. Based on this broad -based effort, I believe the variance provides the flexibility for a g( solution that best accommodates the various factors. (I have previously developed significant doc photos, measurements, etc. and I have shown some of this to Rick Pearson and the Planning Comn information can be presented related to any questions.) Rationale for Variance for the Northeast Location: The northeast location best addresses the various unique factors related to the steep grade, trees and 1. The variance is sensitive to neighbors interests and preserves the character of the neighborhood. -All neighbors to the east and north support the NE variance location which is in an out -of -the way doesn't impact anyone. -The neighbors are opposed to the staff proposal which is highly visible and decreases property vah 2. The variance allows the lowest, least visible profile and involves the least amount of fill because cut 30" into the side hill. This site is the most practical and feasible. 3. The variance is the most tree friendly. It takes out only one tree, a mature oak, whereas the staff takes out more than 15, including 2 mature oaks. Staff Alternative related to the Turnaround Location and no Variance: 1. Sharon Johnson, our neighbor directly to the east, is most impacted and she is extremely her property value & tax base and diminishes her view /aesthetics. 2. It takes out more than 15 trees. Significant back fill takes out more trees. 3. The garage floor needs to be level, but with the staff recommendation, there is a 29" drop in the 1 over the 24' width of the garage. This means the approach must be extended further to the south ar out even more trees. (This makes the garage increasingly visible to McAndrews Rd, where there is building on the south side of McAndrews Rd.) 4. Construction feasibility is challenged by contractors due to the tall vertical block wall on the dov side. They describe a "unique challenge ", they "never built one like that" and they are "not interest project." 5. Reduced parking, snow removal issues, and electric transformer and lines are nearby. The variance is large but it offers greater benefits: Although the 5' setback variance is a significant deviation compared to the standard 30' setback, variance is better than a lesser variance because: -It better protects the character of the neighborhood. -It increases the distance form the pond. -It takes out less trees and requires the least amount of fill. -It increases the distance from Sharon Johnson, the nearby neighbor to the east. -It is almost immaterial in relation to the 145' of brush/trees for the neighbor to the north. -It is an out -of -the way location that is consistent with existing usage. TP4�> l5-( f; aJ S CN �-ZS•ooL), s to build a snow blade approval is part of it is working with -al location for A overall This pond. that site can be It decreases aiaa vuiiu this takes lreadv a steel .Ill west in such a : 5' minimum II'II s r 6 UA } tt t� .i• ri A M3A S .l A13A t zr•z - � � � \ . l sS 6 SS' 6 °°� INI m MO6 . �£ 6z rb �o 5 Io_ „ ra %P p, / _ 50 r ate, .00-012 ,C 3 i 0 o� r1�u Sgais Y�� �- i' €.- O Q ii�ZRe�i s • N r7 o� V1 3 nER a = =f 33 n g_ in g s s z 9,Ja� . Z C 1 Z 4 Q��_xi 0 � :O 73 / r U _ f � % � ���w..e itn. a a. scrum r/z. a u. vsm..i� /• \ � � t i ( es r e q vu ; la b le,- 1v he l, Show ftiJ-5 0reA , v I j I To Rosemount Council: My name is Sharon Johnson and I live directly east of Jeff and Carol Johnson's property. I strongly support their request for a garage in the northeast corner of their property. There is nothing but trees and brush on my property wime they want to build and it is the least visible to anyone, especially me. I am extremely opposed to the staff recommoxdation, to place the garage south of their house. I do not believe the staff considered the impact of this on the neighbors with this suggestion. This would place the garage directly in my view from my deck, kitchen, and familyroom . Thin having a negative effect on my property value and taxes again! Currently there are many trees in that area that would have to be taken down to place the garage in the location the staff has chosen. I Sincerely, Sharon A. Johnson 12445 Chinchilla Ct. W. Rosemount, Mn 55068 (651) 423 -1943 April 25, 2000 Q Date: April 15, 2000 To: Rosemount City Council From: Dale Burns, neighbor to north I Subject: Jeff and Carol Johnson, 3445 McAndrews Rd Variance Request My property lies directly north of Jeff and Carol Johnson's property and I am aware of their req est for a 5' variance to the 30' setback requirements so that they can build a garage. I have no objections to their request and I support it. The request places their garage 160' south of my attached garage and there is 145' of brush/trees between us. I believe the request is better than the staff recommendation from a neighborhood standpoint. I I i � : �� tip