Loading...
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