Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.b. Dotseth Variance EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning Commission Regular Meeting: October 27, 2020 AGENDA ITEM: 20-50-V Request by Christina Dotseth for a variance from the side yard setback standard for a two-story structure and a variance from the lot coverage maximum to construct an addition to the principle structure. AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 5.b. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Site Location, Architectural Plans APPROVED BY: KL RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments adopt a resolution approving the request, subject to the following: 1. The application receives all required building permits for the proposed improvements. 2. Use of the structure as a duplex or multi-family building is prohibited by ordinance. The structure shall not be altered in a way that results in more than one single dwelling unit. SUMMARY The applicant, Christina Dotseth, is requesting two variances from ordinance standards in order to facilitate expansion of the residence. An addition to the structure will be constructed from the rear of the structure to accommodate a ground floor primary bedroom suite. The expansion will also include a second level built above the existing garage that extends over the rear addition. To accommodate the stairway to the second floor the home will also be expanded to the front by 7 feet, but will continue to meet the required front yard setback. The variances being requested are a reduction of the side yard setback requirement for two-story structures from ten (10) feet to six (6) feet and an increase in the maximum lot coverage from 30% to 33%. Staff is recommending approval of the request. Applicant and Owner: Christina Dotseth Location: 14775 Camero Lane Area in Acres: .21 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. The 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 more widely used R1 zoning district. One difference in the lot standards of the R1A zoning district is the side yard setback. Unlike the R1 zoning district which has a minimum side yard setback of 10’, the R1A requires a single-story structure to be 5’ from the side property line while two-story structures must meet a 10’ setback. The principal structure on the subject parcel is 6’ from the property line. The applicant is not proposing to encroach further into the setback than the existing 2 condition, however, because a second story is being proposed, a variance from the 10’ setback for two- story structures is required. In addition to the variance from the side yard setback for two-story structures, the applicant is seeking a variance from the maximum lot coverage standard. The R1A zoning district contains the same standard for maximum lot coverage as the R1 zoning district, which is 30%. The subject parcel is 9,118 square feet in area, lower than the 10,000 square foot minimum lot area for the R1A zoning district. The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage to 33% to accommodate the addition. Oftentimes, the City looks to have new construction meet the ordinance criteria even when there is a nonconforming existing condition. Therefore, while it might be possible to shift the second floor additional four feet to meet the 10-foot standard; it is questionable if that provides relief for the neighbor and also is cumbersome to the property owner. The site is limited in its ability to increase livable space, and shifting the addition to one level (getting rid of the side yard setback variance) would increase the amount of hard surface, increasing the needed variance. The City and the neighborhood benefit from residents’ reinvestment into their homes. As mentioned, the nonconforming lot area creates difficulty in meeting the maximum lot coverage standard in consideration of the improvements the homeowner wants to make. Staff is supportive and recommends approval of the variance to reduce the side yard setback for two-story structures from 10’ to 6’ and the variance to increase the lot coverage maximum from 30% to 33% to allow the applicant to expand the existing structure. In order to ensure that use of the residence isn’t altered by the current or subsequent owner, staff is recommending a condition of approval that memorializes duplexes or multi-family residential structures are not permitted uses on the site. 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 variance request allows for reasonable use of the property. 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. Single-family homes are a permitted use in the R1A zoning district. 2. The variance request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The site is designated as Low Density Residential. The variance request is consistent with that designation. 3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Finding: While the resulting home will be larger than others in the immediate vicinity, it will not be the largest home in the R1A zoning district. Additionally, the home will be smaller than many of the new homes being constructed in other neighborhoods, which are often on smaller lots. Staff finds the proposed expansion of the home to be a reasonable use of the property. 3 4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Finding: Staff finds that there are unique circumstances to the property in that the lot area is smaller than the minimum required by the zoning ordinance, and that the existing side yard setback would not allow for the addition of a full second floor. 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. Other homes in the area are two stories, and many also exceed the maximum lot coverage. Because those structures were built prior to the adoption of the R1A zoning standards they are considered legally non-conforming with regard to the maximum lot coverage. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the information provided by the applicant and the criteria for issuance of a variance, staff is supportive of the variance request and recommends approval, subject to conditions. 1 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION BA2020-XX A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE R1A-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SIDE YARD SETBACK STANDARD FOR TWO-STORY STRUCTURES, FROM TEN (10) FEET TO SIX (6) FEET, AND A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE STANDARD, FROM 30% TO 34%, AT 14775 CAMERO LANE WHEREAS, Christina Dotseth, 14775 Camero Lane, (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 two-story structures, from ten (10) feet to six (6) feet, and a variance from the maximum lot coverage standard, from 30% to 34%, 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 variances from the side yard setback standard for two-story structures the maximum lot coverage standard; 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 single-family detached dwelling at 14775 Camero Lane that is a legal non-conforming structure because it encroaches upon the side yard setback and exceeds the maximum lot coverage required by the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: Lot 6, Block 1, MARION TERRACE REPLAT 2ND ADDITION TO ROSEMOUNT, Dakota County, Minnesota. 2 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. Single-family homes are a permitted use in the R1A zoning district. 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. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Finding: While the resulting home will be larger than others in the immediate vicinity, it will not be the largest home in the R1A zoning district. Additionally, the home will be smaller than many of the new homes being constructed in other neighborhoods, which are often on smaller lots. Staff finds the proposed expansion of the home to be a reasonable use of the property. 8. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Finding: Staff finds that there are unique circumstances to the property in that the lot area is smaller than the minimum required by the zoning ordinance, and that the existing side yard setback would not allow for the addition of a full second floor. 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. Other homes in the area are two stories, and many also exceed the maximum lot coverage. Because those structures were built prior to the adoption of the R1A zoning standards they are considered legally non-conforming with regard to the maximum lot coverage. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, subject to the applicants receiving any required permits for the accessory structure. Passed and duly adopted this 27th day of October, 2020, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. __________________________________ Melissa Kenninger, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Office Specialist