HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. groff
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting: June 28, 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:
Old Business
PREPARED BY: Julia Hogan, Planner AGENDA NO. 6.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution; Excerpt from the May 24, 2022
Planning Commission Meeting; 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, subject to
conditions within the resolution.
UPDATE
The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment, held a public hearing at their
May 24, 2022 meeting to review the request for a variance from the side yard setback requirement for
accessory buildings in the RR-Rural Residential district to allow an existing shed to stay six (6) feet from
the side property line. The Commission had various questions regarding the variance request which
included questions about the current screening onsite, when the additional awning was added to the shed,
and what some potential options could be to screen the shed and the lawn tractor from the neighboring
property owner. Staff informed the Commission that the awning is a part of the shed and though the shed
itself is 16-feet from the property line the awning is between 6 to 9 feet from the property line so that is
why the request is less than what the applicant had originally asked for. Staff also mentioned that there are
currently a few trees planted near the shed but are still small and do not help with screening. Staff showed
the Commission aerial images of the property which sh owed the location of the existing shed and the
location of the fence on site, which ends north of the shed. The Commission questioned if the awning
attached to the shed could be moved to the opposite side of the shed, further away from the property line
but the topography of the land slopes on that side which would make it difficult to move it to that side.
The applicants expressed to the Commission that they would be willing to extend the fence so that it
would screen the shed from the neighboring property, plant evergreen trees, add siding to the awning
section so that the lawn vehicle would be screened as well. The applicants also stated that they would make
the added awning area cohesive with the rest of the existing shed. During the public hearing the
neighboring property owner to the east spoke on the item. The neighbor had no issues with the shed itself
but had concerns with the added awning section of the shed and with the lawn vehicle parked underneath
the awning. The Commission motioned to continue this item until the June 28th, 2022 Planning
Commission Meeting so that the applicants and the neighboring property owner could come up with a
solution for screening of the shed that both parties would be content with.
2
After some discussion, the applicants and neighbor came back to staff with a screening option that both
parties agree with. The applicants will extend their fence by 40-feet so that the fence will fully screen the
shed to the east. The applicants will also need to obtain a building permit for the structure and will need
to comply with the building materials standards for accessory structures that is in the City’s Code.
SUMMARY
The City received an application from 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.
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
3
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.
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
WHEREAS, the Rosemount Board of Appeals and Adjustments continued this item to June 28,
2022 for additional discussion on the item; 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.
2
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.
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 forgoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, subject to the following
conditions:
1) A building permit must be obtained for the existing accessory structure.
2) A 40-foot extension of the existing fence shall be constructed for screening of the accessory
structure.
3) The accessory structure must consist of materials comparable with and complementary to
the principle structure per 11-5-2 A.6.c. of the City’s Code.
Passed and duly adopted this 28th day of June, 2022, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of
the City of Rosemount, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Melissa Kenninger, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Stacy Bodsberg,
Community Development Office Specialist
EXCERPT FROM THE MAY 24, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
5.c. Request by Carol and Gerald Groff for a Variance from the Side Yard Setback Requirement for Accessory
Buildings in the RR-Rural Residential District.
Planner Hogan gave a presentation and summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission .
Chair Kenninger inquired if the fence goes past the shed. Ms. Hogan stated that it does not.
Commissioner Reed inquired if the awning was added after the shed was built. Ms. Hogan confirmed that it was.
Commissioner Rivera inquired if a building permit was required. Ms. Hogan stated that because of the size of the
shed, it did not require a building permit. But when adding the awning, that makes it closer to the property line.
The public hearing opened at 8:19 pm.
Public Comments:
George Groff, 2984 120th Street West, Applicant, stated that they were unaware that they needed to be a specific
measurement from the property line. Is willing to do what is needed to do, adding a fence, added landscaping or
enclosing the side of the awning. There is no other location on the property that the shed can be placed.
Katherine Gayl, 2980 120th Street West, stated that there is no issue with the shed. The issue lies with the
overhang and does not want to look at a tractor.
Chair Kenninger stated that the tractor would be able to be parked in that location whether there was a shed or
not. Would adding a fence, enclosing the side of the shed and/or additional landscaping be acceptable? Ms. Gayle
stated that adding landscaping will take too long to mature. The fence and enclosing the side of the shed would be
acceptable.
MOTION by Kenninger to close the public hearing.
Second by Reed.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
The public hearing closed at 8:32 pm.
Additional Comments:
Chair Kenninger inquired if adding the fence and enclosing the overhang to the conditions would be acceptable.
Ms. Hogan stated that they can be added. Kenninger stated that both options seem feasible.
Commissioner Marlow stated that the fence should be their first option.
Commissioner Reed inquired on how to word the additional condition.
Chair Kenninger inquired if it was possible to continue the item and bring it back to the Planning Commission in
June. To give the neighbors an opportunity to decide on what is acceptable.
MOTION by Kenninger the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to continue this item until the June PC
Meeting
Second by Reed.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
Site