HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.c. Groff Variance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting: May 24, 2022
AGENDA ITEM: 22-38-V Request by Carol and Gerald Groff
for a Variance from the Side Yard Setback
Requirement for Accessory Buildings in the
RR-Rural Residential District.
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Julia Hogan, Planner AGENDA NO. 5.c.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution; Site Location; Letter from
Applicant; Site Plan, Site Pictures APPROVED BY: AK
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to Adopt a Resolution Approving a
Variance from the RR-Rural Residential Side Yard Setback Standard for Accessory
Structures from thirty (30) feet to six (6) feet at 2984 120th Street West.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, is being asked to consider a
request by Gerald and Carol Groff for a Variance from the side yard setback requirement for an accessory
structure in order to allow an existing non-conforming shed to continue being 6-feet from the east side
property line at 2984 120th Street West in the RR-Rural Residential zoning district. The applicant is
requesting a Variance that would reduce the minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure from
thirty (30) feet to six (6) feet.
Applicants and Owners: Gerald and Carol Groff
Location: 2984 120th Street West
Area in Acres: 0.99 Acre
Comp Guide Plan Designation: RR - Rural Residential
Current Zoning: RR - Rural Residential
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is located directly south of 120th Street West and 700-feet west of Dodd Road near the
northern city boundary adjacent to Eagan’s city limits. The parcel was subdivided prior to the RR-Rural
Residential zoning district which is why the parcel was able to be buildable even though it does not meet
the minimum lot area and minimum lot width requirements. The subject property is surrounded by two
parcels with existing homes on them, which were built in the 1980s. There are no other neighboring
homes to the north or to the south of the subject property. The subject parcel currently contains a single-
family home with an attached garage and an existing non-conforming accessory structure. The home was
constructed in 2020 and though it did not meet the required minimum lot area or lot width, it did meet the
zoning setback requirements of homes within the RR zoning district.
2
The applicants stated in their narrative that they had not realized that their property was zoned RR-Rural
Residential and that there were different setback requirements for the RR zoning district. Since the shed
was under 200-sqft in size no permit was required by the applicants. Though no permit is required for
accessory structures under 200-sqft setback requirements must still be followed. The applicants explained
that they had thought that they were following the allowed setbacks because in other residential zoning
districts the requirement is 10-ft setback from the side yard property lines. The applicants also explained
that if they had known about the 30-ft setback requirement they would not have moved forward with
building the shed since that would have put the location of the shed in the middle of their backyard.
The subject parcel is narrow in size and the topography on site is quite steep, which makes it hard to find a
suitable spot for an accessory shed on the property. The surrounding area has that same difficult
topography with steep slopes and vast tree coverage, which is why a number of homes and accessory
structures within this area of the city are located closer to property lines than you may see elsewhere.
Staff is supportive and recommends approval of a variance to reduce the side yard setback for accessory
structures from thirty (30) feet to six (6) feet to allow the existing non-conforming shed to stay in its
current location.
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 and Adjustments 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.
Sheds are accessory uses in the RR zoning district.
2. The variance request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: The site is designated as Rural Residential. The variance request is consistent with that
designation.
3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Finding: Staff finds that the variance permits the homeowner to use the property consistent with
many others in the RR zoning district.
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 topography and vast
tree coverage on the site make it difficult to find a suitable area for an additional structure. The
property is also very narrow in size, which makes it difficult to meet the 30-ft side yard setback
requirement in the RR zoning district.
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
properties within the Rural Residential zoning district and this area of the City feature accessory
buildings close to side property lines due to tree coverage and the topography of the land.
3
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the Variance request by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments based
on the information contained in this report and provided by the applicant.
1
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION BA2022-05
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE RR-RURAL RESIDENTIAL
SIDE YARD SETBACK STANDARD FOR STRUCTURES, FROM THIRTY (30) FEET
TO SIX (6) FEET.
WHEREAS, Gerald & Carol Groff, 2984 120th Street West, (the “Applicants”) has submitted an
application to the City of Rosemount (the “City”) for a Variance from the RR-Rural Residential side
yard setback standard for structures from thirty (30) feet to six (6) 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 30’ side yard setback to 6’ on May 24, 2022; 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 existing non-conforming shed at 2984 120th Street
West because it encroaches upon the side yard setback required by the Zoning Ordinance.
4. That the Variance will be located on the property legally described as follows: That part of
Government Lot 1, Section 8 and the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, all
in Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota.
5. That the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Sheds are
accessory uses in the RR zoning district.
6. That the site is designated as Rural Residential in the City of Rosemount Comprehensive
Land Use Plan, and the request is consistent with that designation.
2
7. That the Variance permits the homeowner to use the property in a reasonable manner that is
consistent with many others in the RR zoning district.
8. That there are unique circumstances to this property. The topography and vast tree coverage
on the site make it difficult to find a suitable area for an additional structure. The property is
also very narrow in size, which makes it difficult to meet the 30-ft side yard setback
requirement in the RR zoning district.
9. That the essential character of the locality would not be altered by granting the Variance.
Other properties within the Rural Residential zoning district and this area of the City feature
accessory buildings close to side property lines due to tree coverage and the topography of
the land.
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 24th day of May, 2022, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of
the City of Rosemount, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Melissa Kenninger, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Stacy Bodsberg,
Community Development Office Specialist
Site