Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.b. Liggett VarianceEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting: October 22, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: 19-40-V Request by Tracy Scott Liggett for a Variance from the Side Yard Setback Requirement for Driveways in the R1A-Low Density Residential Zoning District. AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 5.b. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Site Location Map, Site Aerial, Site Plan, Applicant’s Narrative APPROVED BY: KL RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Variance from the R1A-Low Density Residential Side Yard Setback for Driveways from five feet to zero feet at 3686 149th Street West. SUMMARY The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, is being asked to consider an application from Tracy Scott Liggett for a variance from the driveway side yard setback requirement of five feet to construct a driveway expansion that will allow accesses to a future, planned detached garage located at the rear of the house. The applicant’s request is to allow construction of the driveway up to the property line, or a zero-foot setback. This request was reviewed by staff in the planning and engineering departments, and staff is recommending the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve a variance maintaining a two-foot side yard setback except in the area near the corner of the principal structure where the setback may be reduced to zero feet to allow proper maneuvering of a vehicle around the corner of the house. Applicant and Owner: Tracy Scott Liggett Location: 3686 149th Street West Area in Acres: .36 Acres Comp Guide Plan Designation: LDR-Low Density Residential Current Zoning: R1A-Low Density Residential BACKGROUND The subject parcel is located within the R1A-Low Density Residential Zoning District. This district is comprised of single-family neighborhoods that were platted prior to 1979 and do not conform to many of the setback standards in the R1 zoning districts. The neighborhood in which the subject property is located features homes that were originally built with single car garages, if any. The subject property’s parcel boundaries are a pie or wedge shape due to its location on the outside of a ninety degree turn in the road, resulting in a smaller, more constrained front yard. The applicant has provided a narrative explaining their reasons for making this request. 2 Planning staff and engineering staff reviewed the applicant’s request to expand the driveway up to the property line. Initially the applicant had requested more of the driveway be immediately adjacent to the lot line, which was not supported by staff. Staff feels that permitting the driveway to be built up to the property line would remove any area for snow storage and result in snow from the subject parcel to be placed onto the neighboring parcel. Additionally, if much of the driveway was expanded all the way to the parcel boundary, a vehicle leaving the paved area would be driving on the adjacent parcel. Finally, maintaining at least a minimal setback for the majority of the driveway will ensure fewer conflicts between future owners of the properties. Since that time, the applicant had provided more information to staff and met with staff on site. The conclusion was that in order to enable a future access to a garage, the driveway would have to be along the property line to allow maneuvering by the corner of the house. In general, staff believes the ability to place a two- car garage on a residential lot is a reasonable expectation and supports variance to aid in that goal. Further this lot is irregularly shaped as compared to others in the neighborhood and therefore possesses unique characteristics not expected elsewhere in the community. A review of the standards for granting a variance are listed below. Staff is supportive and recommends approval of a variance to allow the applicant to expand their driveway up to the property line in the area around the northern corner of the principal structure so long as a setback of two feet is maintained along the driveway toward the street. 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 that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. The R1A zoning district is intended to maintain the character of the older neighborhoods in Rosemount by eliminating nonconformities related to setbacks and other standards of the R1 zoning district. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The site is designated as Low Density Residential. The variance request is consistent with that designation. 3. Granting of the variance allows use of the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; Finding: Staff finds that the variance permits the homeowner to use the property consistent with many others in the community and allowing access to a future detached garage. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Finding: Staff finds that there are unique circumstances to this property. The pie-shape form in which the lot lines are drawn creates constraints that limit the full use of the property by the owner. 3 5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The essential character of the locality would not be altered by granting the variance. Many other properties in the vicinity feature driveways that extend around the principal structure to a detached garage to the rear of the property. Variances were not needed in those instances due to the regular shape of those parcels. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the information provided by the applicant, the criteria for issuance of a variance, and City support for a two-car garage, staff is supportive of the variance request. 1 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION BA2019-02 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE R1A-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SIDE YARD SETBACK STANDARD FOR SURFACE PARKING, INCLUDING DRIVEWAYS, FROM FIVE (5) FEET TO ZERO (0) FEET. WHEREAS, Tracy Liggett, 3686 149th Street West, (the “Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City of Rosemount (the “City”) for a variance from the R1A-Low Density Residential side yard setback standard for surface parking, including driveways, from five (5) feet to zero (0) feet. 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 for a variance from the 5’ side yard setback to 0’ on October 22, 2019; 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 expansion of a driveway at 3686 149th Street West that is a legal non-conforming driveway because it encroaches upon the side yard setback required by the Zoning Ordinance. 4.That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: Lot 22, Block 1, Edwin Rahn 3rd Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota. 5.The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Finding: Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. The R1A zoning district is intended to maintain the character of the older neighborhoods in Rosemount by eliminating nonconformities related to setbacks and other standards of the R1 zoning district. 2 6. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The site is designated as Low Density Residential. The variance request is consistent with that designation. 7. Granting of the variance allows use of the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; Finding: Staff finds that the variance permits the homeowner to use the property consistent with many others in the community and allowing access to a future detached garage. 8. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Finding: Staff finds that there are unique circumstances to this property. The pie-shape form in which the lot lines are drawn creates constraints that limit the full use of the property by the owner. 9. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The essential character of the locality would not be altered by granting the variance. Many other properties in the vicinity feature driveways that extend around the principal structure to a detached garage to the rear of the property. Variances were not needed in those instances due to the regular shape of those parcels. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The setback may be reduced to zero only in the area closest to the house as shown on the attached plan, otherwise the minimum setback shall be two feet along the driveway. 2. The driveway expansion must be paved with an approved surface such as asphalt or concrete. 3. The application receives the necessary permit to expand the driveway. Passed and duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2019, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. __________________________________ Melissa Kenninger, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary 3