HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Variance to allow a lot combination
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Board of Appeals and Adjustment Meeting: April 24, 2018
AGENDA ITEM: 18-14-V: Variance to allow a lot
combination that will cause an existing
parcel to exceed the maximum allowed
square footage of accessory buildings.
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Site Location, Applicant
Narrative, Property Exhibit, Description
Sketch, Property Maps, Site Aerial, Site
Photos
APPROVED BY: K.L.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to
approve a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a lot split and recombination that
will result in property at 12145 Danbury Way exceeding the maximum aggregate size of
accessory buildings by 2,100 square feet.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, is being asked to consider an
application from Steve Collier for a variance that would allow him add 0.63 acres to his existing parcel at
12145 Danbury Way from an adjacent property (12151 Danbury Way), including an existing detached
residential structure situated on this neighboring parcel. A variance is needed because the detached garage
(presently on the neighboring property) is 2,500 square feet in size would cause his lot to exceed the
maximum aggregate size allowed for accessory structures in the RR – Rural Residential zoning district.
The zoning ordinance allows a combined maximum area of 1,200 square feet for all accessory structures in
the RR district. There are 800 square feet of accessory buildings on the applicant’s property; therefore, the
addition of another 2,500 square feet of building area will cause the applicant’s lot to exceed the maximum
allowed by 2,100 square feet. Due in part to the unique circumstances concerning the location of the
subject garage, staff is recommending approval of the variance request.
Applicant: Joshua Stephen Collier, 12145 Danbury Way
Adjacent Property Owners: Sue Ellen McGowan (Trust), 12151 Danbury Way
Location: Addresses as noted above
Area in Acres: 0.63 acres (to be acquired), Current property 2.55 acres
Comp. Guide Plan Designation: RR-Rural Residential
Current Zoning: RR-Rural Residential
BACKGROUND
The applicant’s parcel is located in the extreme northwestern portion of Rosemount on a peninsula of land
with three other homes that is almost completely surrounded by other municipalities. It is located roughly
2,000 feet north of McAndrews Road and accessed via a private shared driveway at the end of Danbury
Way. Mr. Collier presently owns 2.55 acres of land, which was subdivided from the surrounding parcel
sometime in the mid 1970’s. At one point in time, all three parcels at the end of Danbury were under
common ownership as part of a larger parcel owned by the Mickelson family, which was later subdivided
and transferred to other members of the family resulting in the three existing lots. The present
configuration of shared driveways and arrangement of buildings reflects past usage by members of the
same family.
After the recent purchase of his home at 12145 Danbury Way, the applicant approached the Sue Ellen
McGowan (Mickleson’s Daughter) about acquiring the garage located immediately north of his property.
Although the family is willing to sell the garage and some land around it to Mr. Collier, staff will not be
able to approve a lot split/recombination without a variance because the zoning/subdivision ordinances
do not allow such subdivision of land if the resulting split results in the parcel (or both affected lots) not
meeting current ordinance requirements. As noted in the summary section of this report, the addition of
the garage to the applicant’s lot will result in his property far exceeding the maximum detached accessory
building area allowed for an individual parcel in the RR zoning district. The applicant has therefore
applied for a variance from the accessory building size limitation in order to proceed with the lot split and
acquisition of the garage.
In the attached narrative, the applicant provides his rationale for acquiring the garage, and lists several
proposed findings to support approval of the variance. One of the more pertinent points raised by the
applicant is that the subject garage was actually constructed at the same time as his house, which points
towards its functioning as an accessory to the house at 12145 and not the larger parcel with which it is
currently associated. The location of the garage is also unique because it is much closer to the applicant’s
house than the house on the same lot as it. From a practical perspective, if you were to view this area
without parcel boundaries, the garage appears to be very much accessory to the applicant’s property due its
the close proximity and arrangement of driveways in this part of the property. As part of the City’s
northern rural residential land use area, the subject site is very isolated from any neighboring land uses and
the nearest residential structure is over 700 feet away.
If the variance is approved, the applicant would be able to proceed with a lot split/recombination to add
0.63 acres from the neighboring property to his parcel. This would leave the adjacent parcel with 11.23
acres and he would then own 3.18 acres. Because the resulting parcels comply with the minimum RR
district lot standards (minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and maximum density of one house per five acres) the
subdivision can be approved administratively by staff.
ISSUE ANALYSIS
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 each request along with staff’s
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 : Staff finds the request in harmony with the ordinance. Granting the proposed variance
will not result in any changes to the current configuration of driveways and buildings on the two
affected lots, and will better align the subject garage with the closest principle building.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finding : Staff finds the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the
Rural Residential land use designation is to provide housing on larger lots that are not intended to
be developed with urban services. The transfer of the garage to another adjoining owner does not
alter the character of this area or result in the need for urban services.
3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property.
Finding : The variance allows the detached accessory building to be owned and maintained by the
closest homeowner. The garage was constructed when the two properties were owned by the
same family, and now that they are under separate ownership, it is reasonable to transfer
ownership of the garage as well. The granting of the variance will result in no physical or visible
changes to the property.
4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner.
Finding : The creation of three lots from the original parcel at 12151 Danbury Way was
completed long before the applicant purchased his property, and the variance will correct a
mismatch between the arrangement of accessory buildings and principal structures on each lot.
The property is very isolated and a considerable distance from the nearest public road.
5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding : The essential character of the locality will not be altered by granting of the variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Board of Appeals and Adjustment approve the variance to allow the
addition of a parcel of land with a 2,500 square foot garage to the applicant’s existing lot.
Resolution BA2018-02 1
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION BA2018-02
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A LOT SPLIT AND
RECOMBINATION THAT WILL RESULT IN A PAREL EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM
AGGREGATE ACCESORY BUILDING SIZE ALLOWED IN THE RR RURAL
RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Steve Collier, 12145 Danbury Way (the “Applicant”), has submitted an application to
the City Rosemount (the “City”), for a variance to add 0.63 acres to his existing parcel from the
adjoining property, including a detached residential garage, that would cause his property to exceed
the maximum aggregate detached accessory building size allowed in a RR Rural Residential zoning
district by 2,100 square feet; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance, Section 11-12-2; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemount Board of Appeals and Adjustments held a public hearing and
considered said on said matter on April 24, 2018; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Rosemount
Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS
1. That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance, Section 11-12-2.
2. That all the submission requirements of said Section 11-12-2 have been met by the
Applicant.
3. That the proposed variance will allow the applicant to add 0.63 acres to his existing parcel
from the adjoining property, including a detached residential garage, that would cause his
property to exceed the maximum aggregate detached accessory building size allowed in a RR
Rural Residential zoning district by 2,100 square feet.
4. That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows (the applicant’s
current lot prior to subdivision/recombination):
All that part of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18, Township 115,
Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the
Resolution BA2018-02 2
Northwest corner of the said Section 18, thence Southerly along the West line of the
said Section 18, a distance of 184.63 feet, said point being the actual point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing Southerly along the West
line of said Section 18 a distance of 417.00 feet; thence deflect to the left 90º 52' 36"
a distance of 172.02 feet; thence deflect to the left 18º 16' 37" a distance of 105.86
feet; thence deflect to the left 70° 50' 53" a distance of 379.64 feet; thence Westerly
to the point of beginning.
5. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Finding :
Staff finds the request in harmony with the ordinance. Granting the proposed variance will
not result in any changes to the current configuration of driveways and buildings on the two
affected lots, and will better align the subject garage with the closest principle building.
6. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding : Staff finds the request is
consistent with the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the Rural Residential land use
designation is to provide housing on larger lots that are not intended to be developed with
urban services. The transfer of the garage to another adjoining owner does not alter the
character of this area or result in the need for urban services.
7. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property. Finding : The variance
allows the detached accessory building to be owned and maintained by the closest
homeowner. The garage was constructed when the two properties were owned by the same
family, and now that they are under separate ownership, it is reasonable to transfer
ownership of the garage as well. The granting of the variance will result in no physical or
visible changes to the property.
8. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner.
Finding : The creation of three lots from the original parcel at 12151 Danbury Way was
completed long before the applicant purchased his property, and the variance will correct a
mismatch between the arrangement of accessory buildings and principal structures on each
lot. The property is very isolated and a considerable distance from the nearest public road.
9. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding : The
essential character of the locality will not be altered by granting of the variance.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted.
Resolution BA2018-02 3
Passed and duly adopted this 24th day of April 2018, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of
the City of Rosemount, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Melissa Kenninger, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary
April 11, 2018
Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates
1 inch = 1,505 feet±