CYM05-25

Request of Jacob Winkler for an after-the-fact variance to decrease the front yard setback from 65 feet to 59 feet and for a decrease of the side yard setback from 50 feet to 36 feet in the Agricultural zoning district. The subject property is described as commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33; thence North 00 degrees 15 minutes 48 seconds East on the east line of the Northeast Quarter, a distance 670.21 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 44 degrees 18 minutes 02 seconds West, 162.98; thence North 58 degrees 15 minutes 25 seconds West, 156.64 feet; thence North 54 degrees 43 minutes 43 seconds West 126.21 feet; thence to the right on a 550.00 foot radius curve a distance of 345.83 feet, with a delta angle of 36 degrees 01 minutes 37 seconds; thence North 18 degrees 42 minutes 06 seconds West, 82.27 feet to the north line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 39 seconds East on said north line, a distance of 582.68 feet to the northeast corner of Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence south 00 degrees 15 minutes 48 seconds West on the east line of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 623.11 feet to the point of beginning, 19915 584th Avenue, Mankato MN 56001, Mankato Township, Blue Earth County (PID R430933276003).

Jacob Winkler is the applicant and property owner.
 

Request of Jacob Winkler for an after-the-fact variance to decrease the front yard setback from 65 feet to 59 feet and for a decrease of the side yard setback from 50 feet to 36 feet in the Agricultural zoning district. The subject property is described as commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33; thence North 00 degrees 15 minutes 48 seconds East on the east line of the Northeast Quarter, a distance 670.21 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 44 degrees 18 minutes 02 seconds West, 162.98; thence North 58 degrees 15 minutes 25 seconds West, 156.64 feet; thence North 54 degrees 43 minutes 43 seconds West 126.21 feet; thence to the right on a 550.00 foot radius curve a distance of 345.83 feet, with a delta angle of 36 degrees 01 minutes 37 seconds; thence North 18 degrees 42 minutes 06 seconds West, 82.27 feet to the north line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 39 seconds East on said north line, a distance of 582.68 feet to the northeast corner of Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence south 00 degrees 15 minutes 48 seconds West on the east line of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 623.11 feet to the point of beginning, 19915 584th Avenue, Mankato MN 56001, Mankato Township, Blue Earth County (PID R430933276003).
 

The subject property is described as commencing at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33; thence North 00 degrees 15 minutes 48 seconds East on the east line of the Northeast Quarter, a distance 670.21 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 44 degrees 18 minutes 02 seconds West, 162.98; thence North 58 degrees 15 minutes 25 seconds West, 156.64 feet; thence North 54 degrees 43 minutes 43 seconds West 126.21 feet; thence to the right on a 550.00 foot radius curve a distance of 345.83 feet, with a delta angle of 36 degrees 01 minutes 37 seconds; thence North 18 degrees 42 minutes 06 seconds West, 82.27 feet to the north line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 56 minutes 39 seconds East on said north line, a distance of 582.68 feet to the northeast corner of Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence south 00 degrees 15 minutes 48 seconds West on the east line of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 623.11 feet to the point of beginning, 19915 584th Avenue, Mankato MN 56001, Mankato Township, Blue Earth County (PID R430933276003).

The land consists of 5.0 acres and is currently used for residential purposes.
 

The site is zoned Agricultural by the Mankato Township Zoning Ordinance.
 

There are environmentally sensitive areas on the parcel. There are wetland areas identified on the national Wetlands Inventory, ravines, and wooded areas showing on the environmental sensitive map.
 

Jacob Winkler is requesting an after-the-fact variance to decrease the front yard setback from 65 feet to 59 feet and for a decrease of the side yard setback from 50 feet to 36 feet in the Agricultural zoning district.

A 30’ x 32’ addition on the north side of the existing single-family dwelling does not currently conform to the required front yard nor the side yard setback, so the applicant is requesting for a variance of the side yard setback of 50 feet to 36 feet. Additionally, the northern property line is located adjacent to a cartway, which is considered a public right-of-way in the Mankato Township. While the current survey designates the road as a cartway, the road is currently being used as a private driveway. Thus, the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance to decrease the required 65 front yard setback to 59 feet.

In order to grant a variance, the Board shall make affirmative findings in five categories. Those categories are: the conformance to code 0100.2005-part A and B in Mankato Township Zoning ordinance, the use of property is in a reasonable manner, the circumstances are unique to the property that is not caused by the property owner, the request does not alter the essential character or the zoning district, and that the use is in harmony with Mankato Township Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan.

The proposed after the fact variance does not conform to the standards for granting a variance found in the Mankato Township ordinance section 0100.2005. There are not any special circumstances or conditions affecting the land, building, or use that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity. When asked in the application, if the variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinances, the applicant states, “Yes, I am looking to expand my structure to improve for property maintenance”.

Staff’s analysis of the subject site shows that the applicant has space to place his addition to the southeast of his home rather than the current structure being placed closer to the Northern property line. Additionally, there appear to be locations on the site that would accommodate a detached, accessory structure.

The placement of the structure is injurious to property or improvements in the area adjacent to the property of the applicant. The placement is too close to required setback and is not in uniform with other properties within the vicinity that have to follow to zoning ordinance per the Agricultural district. Staff is not aware of a previously approved after-the-fact variance for a side and/or front yard setback reduction for an attached garage, that has been approved by the Mankato Township Board.

The location of the structure is not in accordance with the Code standards and is not being used in a reasonable manner because there appear to be other locations of placement. The home currently has a 2-stall garage, so the applicant could have placed either an attached addition to the southeast of the home or the applicant could have place a detached accessory structure in many other locations throughout the property.

There are not circumstances that are unique to the property and not caused by the property owner. The Agricultural District is intended to prevent residential scattered development. The parcel containing the illegal nonconformity does have some environmentally sensitive areas, but they would not conflict with the placement of the structure being placed to the southeast of the current home or with locations potentially associated with a detached structure. When asked on the application if there are circumstances unique to the property, the applicant and owner of the addition responded “no”.

The request does alter the essential character of the Mankato Township within the Agricultural district. All dwellings shall meet the required setbacks from their front, rear, and side yard in the district. However, the addition that was placed on the North side of the single family dwelling does not align with the regulations set forth in Mankato Township Land Use Ordinance and is therefore altering the character of the district.

The proposed use is not in harmony with the general intent of Mankato Townships ordinance and is not consistent with the Mankato Township comprehensive plan. The general intent of the Mankato Township is to provide orderly development within all districts to conserve the character and to assure the appropriate use of land. By allowing an illegal non-conformity within the Agricultural district, the township would not remain compliant with the zoning district ordinances, it would not be promoting orderly development, and it would not be an appropriate use of land.
 

1. The proposed variance does not conform to the standards for granting a variance found in the Mankato Township ordinance section 0100.2005. There are not any unique or special circumstances to the immediate surrounding area. There is already an existing 2-car, approximately 22’ x 28’, attached garage at the property. The site appears to provide space to shift the attached garage structure southeast of the current home. If the applicant’s stated use of the structure is for storage, there also appear to be other locations on the site for a detached accessory structure.
2. The property owner is not currently utilizing the property in a reasonable manner, given that there were other locations the property owner could have placed the attached addition and/or place a detached accessory structure.
3. There are not circumstances unique to the property that are not caused by the property owner. The applicant has constructed the addition in required side yard and front yard setback, when there was adequate room to place the addition to the southeast of the dwelling.
4. The request does alter the essential character of Mankato Township in the Conservation district by not abiding in the required 50 feet side yard and the 65 feet front yard setback.
5. The proposed use is not in harmony with the general intent of Mankato Townships ordinance and is inconsistent with the Mankato Township comprehensive plan.

Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variance.