HomeMy WebLinkAboutX-C-01 Variance - Front Yard Setback - Ground Mounted Solar - Dakota County (1590 Highway 55)
City Council Memorandum
To: Mayor Fasbender & City Councilmembers
From: Justin Fortney, City Planner
Date: November 6, 2023
Item: Variance #2023-37 – Front Setback – 1590 Highway 55 – Dakota County
Government Center
Council Action Requested:
Review and take action on the attached resolution approving the following variance
request:
1.A variance to the requirement that ground-mounted accessory solar arrays may
not be in the front yards of principal structures, as stipulated in Hastings City
Code 155.07, Subd. K.3.d.(5)
This item was pulled from the October 16, 2023 agenda due to insufficient members
present to vote.
A vote of 75% (6 of 7) of the entire City Council is required to affect any variation in the
application of the zoning code.
Background Information:
Accessory structures including ground-mounted accessory solar arrays may not be in the
front yards of principal buildings. This is to assure they are accessory to the principal use
and do not detract from the streetscape of the district. Staff and the Planning Commission
found there are unique circumstances involving the subject land that make the proposed
location appropriate. Alternate locations studied were problematic. Please see the
attached October 9, 2023 Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Financial Impact:
N/A
Advisory Commission Discussion:
The Planning Commission voted 5-0-1 (Mesina abstained) to recommend approval of the
request at the October 9, 2023 meeting. This request was scheduled for City Council
review on October 16, but there were not enough Councilmembers in attendance to vote
on it.
Council Committee Discussion:
N\A
Attachments:
X-C-01
• Resolution for approval
• Planning Commission memo – October 9, 2023
HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS
SITTING AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS APPROVING
THE REQUEST OF DAKOTA COUNTY TO VARY FROM THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF HASTINGS CITY CODE 155.07, SUBD.
K.3.D.(5) AT 1590 HIGHWAY 55
Council member ___________________________ introduced the following
Resolution and moved its adoption:
WHEREAS, McKinstry Essention LLC., agent for Dakota County, property
owner, has petitioned for a variance from the entire front yard setback requirement of
Hastings City Code 155.07, Subd. K.3.d.(5) to allow construction of a ground-mounted
accessory solar array in the front yard on property generally located at 1590 Highway 55,
legally described as SE 1/4 of NW ¼, EX PARCEL 258F on MNDOT ROW Plat 19-88,
of SECTION, 29 TWN 115, RANGE 17, Dakota County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, variances to the Hastings City Code may be considered by the Board
of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals upon determination of supporting evidence as
stipulated in Hastings City Code 30.02(F); and
WHEREAS, The City Council acts as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals in
accordance with Hastings City Code 30.02(A), and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Hastings
serving in advisory to the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals reviewed the petition
as required by state law, city charter and city ordinance; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
petition consistent with findings of fact and conclusions included in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, The City Council sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals has
reviewed the petition and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HASTINGS AS FOLLOWS:
X-C-01
That the City Council hereby approves the variance request as presented based on the
following findings of fact and conclusions:
1.Due to the unique nature of the site developing as a campus, the “front” is not
physically identifiable in one specific location and there are conditions that would
not allow the array in alternative locations including steep slopes, older building
roofs, and other more visible front yards.
2.The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based are unique to the
subject property and not applicable to others in the same district. While there is a
similar appearing campus at 1175 Nininger Road,the buildings in that location are
on separate parcels, have more identifiable fronts,and are on level ground.
3.The goal for Dakota County is to become more sustainable by implementing
renewable energy. Additionally, the project will create local jobs, have an economic
impact, and create workforce development for Dakota County and surrounding
communities.
4.Granting of the variance would only allow an accessory use that is in front of the
building based on the address. The array will still be required to meet setbacks from
adjacent properties and will be reviewed administratively for compliance with
applicable codes. This will assure that the variance will not be detrimental to the
public.
5.The proposed array is low to the ground (less than ten-feet tall) and over 150-feet
from the nearest property. At that height and distance, it is not likely to cause any
issues of concern.
6.The purpose and intent of the ordinance is to preserve the streetscape, setback, and
aesthetics of structures along the right-of-way. Due to the location, grade, existing
and proposed landscaping, the location will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the ordinance.
7.The 2040 Comprehensive plan is supportive of solar energy and even suggests there
may be reasons to exempt it from certain standards.
8.The construction of a solar array in the proposed low-lying and screened location
is reasonable.
9.The practical difficulty is caused by the unique site not being adequately addressed
by the ordinance regarding the location of a “front”.
10.Due to visibility concerns, steep slopes, and older building roofs, the proposal could
not reasonably be accomplished under the ordinance requirements.
11.No change is expected to the character of the locality.
12.The applicant has not stated any financial reasoning for the variance.
Council member _____________________ moved a second to this resolution, and upon
being put to a vote it was unanimously adopted by all Council members present.
X-C-01
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a true and correct copy of resolution presented to
and adopted by the City of Hastings, County of Dakota, Minnesota, on the 6th day of
November 2023, as disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record
in the office.
______________________________
Kelly Murtaugh, City Clerk
(SEAL)
This instrument drafted by:
City of Hastings (JJF)
101 4th Street East
Hastings, Minnesota 55033
Adopted by the Hastings City Council on November 6, 2023, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
ATTEST:
______________________________
Mary Fasbender, Mayor
Kelly Murtaugh (City Seal)
X-C-01
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Justin Fortney, City Planner
Date: October 9, 2023
Item: Variance #2023-37 – Front Setback – 1590 Highway 55 – Dakota County
Government Center
Planning Commission Action Requested
Review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the following request:
1) A variance to the requirement that ground-mounted accessory solar arrays may
not be in the front yards of principal structures, as stipulated in Hastings City Code
155.07, Subd. K.3.d.(5)
Background Information
Ground-mounted accessory solar arrays, like all other accessory structures may not be in the
front yard of principal buildings. This is to assure that principal buildings are the most visible.
Principal buildings and uses are those that are allowed by zoning on their own, reviewed by the
Planning Commission and City Council, and have a higher standard for architectural aesthetics.
They should be the most visible features from the front. Accessory structures are typically
reviewed administratively, have less architectural requirements and are not the type of uses one
would expect to be in the zoning district on their own.
Subject Proposal
The applicants propose to install an estimated 595kW ground mounted solar array in the open
low lying area on the SE corner of the site. They believe the site is a good location because it is
well screened, not anticipated for any uses in the foreseeable future, and not very visible. They
have stated that other locations are not feasible. The age of the building roofs would not allow
for rooftop installation. Other open space on the site is not suitable with steep slopes to the
north of the proposed location and the SW corner of the campus is highly visible from the area
streets, entrances, and more identifiable as the front. Carport arrays come with drawbacks and
would provide substantially less energy than the proposal, based on the parking lot
configuration and allowable area.
Planning Commission Memorandum
X-C-01
The subject property is unique since it is very large and laid out as a campus. Addressed from
Highway 55 but with two major entrances on General Sieben Drive along with a few accessing
4th Street West and North Frontage Road. The proposed location for the array is about 150-feet
away from the closest principal building. There is also a large elevation differential between the
campus buildings and the proposed solar array location. These unique conditions differentiate
the property from others that have one visually identifiable front yard. The proposed location of
the solar array is very low and far from the principal buildings. It is also well screened and in a
location with little development potential.
Public Notification
Notification of the variance request was sent to property owners within 350-feet of the
property. Staff has not received any comments.
VARIANCE REVIEW
Variance Definition
Variances are deviations from strict compliance of City Code provisions. The Board of
Adjustment and Appeals may issue a variance upon determination of findings of fact
and conclusions supporting the variance as established in Chapter 30.02, Subd. F of the
City Code. The Planning Commission (acting in part as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals)
may consider variances to the Zoning Code that are not contrary to the public interest where
owing to special conditions, and where a literal enforcement of the provision of the City Code
would result in practical difficulties. Variances may be granted providing the following has been
satisfied (staff review appears in bold italics):
(1) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographic conditions of
the land involved, a practical difficulty to the owner would result, as distinguished from
a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out; Due
to the unique nature of the site developing as a campus, the “front” is not physically
identifiable in one specific location and there are conditions that would not allow the
array in alternative locations including steep slopes, older building roofs, and also
being in the in a defined, but more visible “front”.
(2) The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based are unique to the tract
of land for which the variance is sought and not applicable, generally, to other property
with the same zoning classification; The conditions upon which the petition for a
variance is based are unique to the subject property. While the hospital, specialty
clinic, and senior living on Nininger Road have some similarities, those buildings are on
separate parcels, have more identifiable fronts, and are on level ground.
(3) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the parcel of land; The goal for Dakota County is to
become more sustainable by implementing renewable energy. Additionally, the
X-C-01
project will create local jobs, have an economic impact, and create workforce
development for Dakota County and surrounding communities.
(4) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the vicinity in which the tract of land is
located; Granting of the variance would only allow an accessory use that is in front of
the building based on the address. The array will still be required to meet setbacks
from adjacent properties and will be reviewed administratively for compliance with
applicable codes.
(5) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the vicinity; The proposed array is low to the ground (< 10-feet tall) and
over 150-feet from the nearest property. At that height and distance, it is not likely to
cause any issues of concern.
(6) The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of ordinance; The purpose
and intent of the ordinance is to preserve the streetscape, setback, and aesthetics of
structures along the right-of-way. Due to the location, grade, existing and proposed
landscaping, the location will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance.
(7) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The 2040 Comprehensive
plan is supportive of solar energy and even suggests there may be reasons to exempt
it from certain standards.
(8) The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner; The construction of a
solar array in the proposed low-lying and screened location is reasonable.
(9) There are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical
difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of the variance means that:
(a) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by an official control; The use is reasonable, as explained in number 8.
(b) The practical difficulty is caused by the provisions of this chapter and has not
been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel
of land; The practical difficulty is caused by the unique site not being adequately
addressed by the ordinance regarding the location of a “front”.
X-C-01
1. A practical difficulty is not present if the proposal could be reasonably
accomplished under the current Ordinance requirements. Due to visibility
concerns, steep slopes, and older building roofs, the proposal could not
reasonably be accomplished under the ordinance requirements.
(c) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Due to the passive nature of the array and its screened location, no change is
expected to the character of the locality.
(d) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The
applicant has not stated any financial reasoning for the variance.
(e) Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar
energy systems.
RECOMMENDATION
Granting of the variance is recommended based on the above findings of fact in the
Variance Review.
ATTACHMENTS
• Aerial Map
• Plans and diagrams
• Photographs
X-C-01
X-C-01
Elevation Profile
X-C-01
View A
View B
A
B
X-C-01