Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-22 PACKET 06.3.Planning Staff Report Myers Second Residential Dwelling Variance Case V14 -029 September 22, 2014 Proposal John and Sheryl Myers have applied for a variance to allow a second residential unit as part of a 5,760 square foot detached accessory structure on the residentially zoned property at 10990 Manning Avenue South. Planning Considerations Property Characteristics The site is located west of Manning Avenue and is currently used for single family residential and agricultural uses. The current home and garage have a footprint of 2,525 square feet. The topography of the site is varied as detailed on the contour map below. _on t. - law Planning Considerations Property Characteristics The site is located west of Manning Avenue and is currently used for single family residential and agricultural uses. The current home and garage have a footprint of 2,525 square feet. The topography of the site is varied as detailed on the contour map below. Planning Staff Report Case V14 -029 Myers September 22, 2014 Page 2 of 5 The property is guided for Rural Residential and is zoned R -1, Rural Residential. The density in this zoning district is one dwelling unit per three acres on a separate lot of record. This site is in excess of that minimum standard. There currently is one existing 1,728 square foot detached accessory pole structure on the site. The existing detached accessory structure is located in front of the principal structure, which is permitted on properties over five acres in size. Based on the active crop productions on the site, the applicant has verified that the property currently meets the definition of agricultural use. The reason this fact is identified is that it has a relation- ship to the number and amount of square footage for accessory buildings that can be con- structed on the site. Properties meeting the definition of agricultural use can have an unlimited number of accessory buildings with a total square footage of 300 square feet per 10 acres. Based on the 41.86 -acre site and the agricultural use definition being met, the applicants would have the ability to construct detached accessory buildings totaling 12,558 square feet on the site. Photographs of the site are attached as Exhibit A. Background Earlier this year, the applicant inquired into the requirements for building a separate residential dwelling as an integral component of a new detached accessory structure. The proposed new accessory structure would be 25 feet in height with 5,760 square feet including a 56 -foot by10- foot covered porch. Fmdwll3 &iodo ll2 fndwall2 & SIdnwnll i Proposed Accessory Building Exterior Existing residential dwelling site detail Planning Staff Report Case V14 -029 Myers September 22, 2014 Page 3 of 5 The applicants have indicated that the proposed residential dwelling would be for the purpose of housing Sheryl Myers' parents who are co- owners of the property. The applicants have indi- cated further that the co- owners are also licensed care assistants who assist the Myers family. An additional stated reason for this request is that the applicants want to maintain the rural agri- cultural look of the property instead of a subdivision with multiple properties. The proposed structure would be located behind the principal structure. To clarify, the accessory structure would be able to be constructed regardless of the outcome of this variance request. If the variance is denied, the structure would not be able to have the additional residential dwelling located in it. � W r S t i � n �, aP4 �5 r ; 1 � R� N Y r e r W e'�: ffi tii: Proposed Accessory Structure Detail IN The City's Technical Review Committee reviewed the ordinance criteria and responded that a second residential dwelling on the parcel would not be permitted. 11 -9A -2: PERMITTED USES No structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: 1. Agriculture. 2. Municipal buildings and structures. 3. One - family detached dwellings. 4. Public parks and playgrounds. 5. Public utilities. (1971 Code § 28 -53) Planning Staff Report Case V14 -029 Myers September 22, 2014 Page 4 of 5 The City's Technical Review Committee identified further that based on Title 11 -9A -3: Permitted Accessory Uses, the applicant would have the ability to have an accessory apartment that would allow for an additional living quarters as an accessory and subordinate use to the principal struc- ture. This section of the code requires that the accessory apartment be part of the principal structure and has certain other performance standards. The code also requires that the property owner resides in the principal structure. Summarizing the zoning interpretation by the City, a second detached dwelling unit on the prop- erty would not be permitted, but an accessory apartment as an integral component of the princi- pal structure would be permitted. This same interpretation has been utilized in the past when similar requests have been made. The applicant has chosen to apply for a variance from Title 11 -9A -2 in order to allow for two detached dwelling units on the property. Ordinance Criteria With any variance request, the Planning Commission must look to the zoning ordinance for guidance and direction. Title 11 -2 -7: Variances states that; A. Authority And Purpose: The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this title. D. Consideration By Planning Commission; Recommendation: Before authorization of any variances, the request therefor shall be referred to the planning commission, and for its recommendation to the city council for the granting of such variance from the strict application of the provisions of this title so as to relieve such practical difficulties to the degree considered reasonable without impairing the intent and purpose of this title and the comprehensive plan. The planning commission shall recommend such conditions related to the variance, re- garding the location, character and other features of the proposed building, structure or use, as it may deem advisable. The planning commission shall make its recommendation within sixty (60) days after the request is referred to it, unless the applicant requests, in writing, that an extension of time for review be granted by the planning commission. The planning commission may recommend a variance from the strict application of the provision of this title, if they find that 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. 5. That the conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 6. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. 7. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. R That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Planning Staff Report Case V14 -029 Myers September 22, 2014 Page 5 of 5 The applicant's response to the ordinance criteria is attached as Exhibit A. As stated earlier, the City's Technical Review Committee recommended denial of the variance request. Public Hearing Notice The public hearing notice was mailed to 16 properties within 500 feet and published in the South Washington County Bulletin on September 10, 2014. Summary • The ordinance prohibits a second residential dwelling on the property. • The ordinance allows for accessory apartments in the principal structure. • The property could be subdivided if an additional residential dwelling is desired. • Subdivision would require a minimum of three acres and 180 feet of public frontage. • Subdivision would require the payment of stormwater area charges. • Subdivision would require the payment of cash in lieu of land park dedication. • The proposed accessory structure would be in compliance with current ordinance criteria. • If a variance is granted, building permits would be required. • If a variance is granted, an appropriate sized septic system would be required. • If a variance is granted, Park Dedication fee would be required for the new dwelling. Recommendation Based on the lack of valid findings for a variance, the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council deny of the variance to allow a second residential unit as part of an acces- sory structure on the residentially zoned property at 10990 Manning Avenue South. Prepared by John M. Burbank, AICP Senior Planner Exhibit A = Site Photographs Exhibit B = Applicants response to ordinance criteria 1, (C- f 5 cej I i��: . d,« �� \ »k}� d�� . - ^� � \� , \<� \� � � : . . w :� - �� \� ? AI 1� ..� 2 � � � � �•��. ! ill \ . �. . > {yy \ \ ���\ . �. \ .., §�: \� ,..,� � »a£�a \� \: \^ � ��� \`��� � ..� 2 � � � � �•��. ! ill i " �il +��� � a i ��e � {,,* r AIM F. C l 1 Cottage Community Development Department Planning Division ♦� Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Telephone: 651 - 458 -2827 ■ = +�. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Fax: 651 - 458 -2897 www.cottage- grove.om E -Mail: planninclacottage- grove.org VARIANCE APPLICATION — RESPONSE TO ORDINANCE CRITERIA The Planning Commission and City Council may recommend a variance from the strict application of the zoning ordinance, if they find that your application meets the findings below. Please provide a DETAILED response to all of the following findings: 1. The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this title. Please circle: Yes W1 No 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Please circle: Yes ✓ No LJ The variance would allow us to maintain the agricultural feel of the property. 3. The proposal puts the property to a reasonable use. Please explain. The proposal would allow our family to continue using the property for agricultural use and get assistance with raising our mentally handicapped children. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. Please identify these circumstances. We have 2 daughters who are mentally handicapped and will need assistance with daily living for the remainder of their lives. 5. The conditions upon which an application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classifications. Please list the conditions that are unique. The variance to allow a separate structure for in -laws to live in would be unique because they are licensed care assistants for our special needs daughters. Additionally, the in -laws are joint property owners, which is a unique circumstance. 6. The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a financial hardship. Please circle: Yes ✓ No Ll The variance would allow us to continue caring for our daughters. 7. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Please circle: Yes M No ❑ It would still look and feel like any other agricultural property. 8. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. Please identify any potential impact the requested variance may have. No additional impact. Structure would be located roughly in the middle of 42 acres, providing space around property lines. Economic hardship is not regarded by the Courts as a reason for approval. Neighborhood support or opposition, without any basis of facts, is not regarded by the Courts as reason for either approval or denial. Applicant Name: John Myers © Case #: V2014 -029