Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 - Structure Move and Variance - 413 2nd Street W To: Planning Commissioners From: Justin Fortney, City Planner Date: April 28, 2025 Item: Structure Move and Variance #2025-08 – 413 2nd Street W – Fred Weiland Planning Commission Action Requested 1. The Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Design Control is asked to review the following request to move a structure to 413 2nd Street W. a. Move an existing rambler from outside the city to the subject property to be used as a garage. Chapter 30.03 Board of Design Control, Subd. (C) Referral By Planning Director. 2. The Planning Commission, providing a recommendation to the City Council, serving as the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals, is asked to review the following request for a variance. a. A five-foot variance to the ten-foot streetside setback of an accessory structure. Chapter 155.05, Subd. (D)(11) – Accessory structures: R-2, Corner side setback – 10’. Background Information The subject property is listed as a Local Heritage Preservation Site in the City of Hasting. This requires all exterior changes to be approved by the HPC. Last June the applicant applied to the HPC to move an adjacent house onto the property to be used as a garage. This was approved, but the owner decided to continue to rent home out as a residence. He recently reapplied to move the subject structure to the property as a garage with some modifications. The HPC approved the request with either a five-foot or 10-foot street side setback. Structure move The applicant is proposing to move a vacant rambler from 12003 Akron Avenue in Rosemount to the subject property for use as a garage. The rambler was built in 1949 and is 920 square feet in size measuring about 46’ by 21’. The structure is proposed to be located between the house and Forest Street, setback even with the front of the existing house from 2nd Street. A street side setback variance is discussed further in this report. A proposed structure to be built, altered, or moved to a site that could potentially be dissimilar to area structures must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Design. Area homes are predominantly from the mid to late 19th century, except for the home to the west, which was built in 1959 and a home across the street built in 2004. The homes are all in good condition. The home to the west is of similar era and architectural style to the proposed structure. Planning Commission Memorandum The proposed structure The structure was a three-bedroom and one-bathroom home that is now vacant and partially stripped. There are signs of deferred maintenance including siding in poor condition, wood rot around some windows, broken window panes, damaged fascia, and an aged roof. A City building inspector did a brief inspection of the subject structure and found it was structurally sound but needed maintenance and repairs. He suspects there could be issues with the sill plate being rotten in places due to the high dirt level around the home. Knowing the structure was intended to be used as a garage, the inspector reviewed the attic and found evidence that the center wall was likely bearing load from the roof. He said this could possibly be changed to a beam and posts by an architect or engineer. This would leave 10-foot-wide parking stalls. The inspector said the structure would have to be anchored to a foundation or frost protected slab, if moved. He added that a move would require a building permit and complete plan submittal for all planned and required work. Proposed changes The applicant proposes to repair and paint all the siding and convert the 2nd Street facing cross gable end into an open porch. He also proposed increasing the wall height from 8-feet to 10-feet with formed concrete on the footings. The applicant proposes installing garage door(s) on the south side of the garage, which would not be visible from the streets. Timeframe The applicant states his timeframe for the project is two years. This year, he proposes to move it, excavate, and install the concrete work. The second year he would complete the project by addressing structural and cosmetic changes. City approvals are valid for one year, but once started, they may continue work if there is constant progress. Projects of this size are typically completed within a year. 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. Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals Hastings City Code Chapter 30.02 establishes the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals and appoints the City Council and Planning Commission to facilitate the Board’s roles and duties. Applications for Variances require Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals review. Variance Review City Code Chapter 30.02(F) establishes the requirement for granting variances. 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; The flattest area of the property is nearest Forest Street. If a structure was placed closer to the home, there would be much more cut and filling required. Additionally, the elevation cutting may cause significant damage to mature tree roots of the trees the applicant intends to save from removal. Forest Street is only a short stub street in this location because the elevation drops significantly south of this location and would likely never be extended any further. As a result, Forest Street in this location is only 20-feet wide, creating an extremely wide boulevard of 22-feet between the street and property line. (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 above are highly unique to the subject tract of land. While there may be other areas with similar elevation changes, they would not also have excessively large boulevards of unusable right-of-way. (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 owner doesn’t seek to obtain the variance exclusively to increase the value or income potential of the lot, as the variance is necessary to locate a typically sized garage structure without significant elevation changes. (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; No, while the setback to the property line will be less than other locations, the setback to the street will remain similar to locations with the full setback requirements because of the extra wide boulevard. (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; It does not appear that the variance will impair light, air, congestion, fire danger, public safety, or property values within the vicinity, as the proposed garage will be located a typical distance from the street. Additionally, the Street is a short dead end without through traffic. (6) The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of ordinance; Yes, the purpose and intent of the ordinance is to limit accessory structures from being located close to the road for a uniform streetscape. The structure will still be a typical distance from the road. (7) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; Yes, the Comprehensive Plan guides this area as residential. This would allow accessory uses subordinate to principal uses. (8) The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner; Location of a detached garage adjacent to a home 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; Yes, as stated in number 8 above. (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 elevation difference, trees, and wide boulevard were not caused by the applicant. 1. A practical difficulty is not present if the proposal could be reasonably accomplished under the current Ordinance requirements. The applicant cannot accomplish the proposal under the current ordinance requirements. The long narrow configuration of the structure accommodates the topography as much as possible. There is a location behind the house which could possible serve, but that area is access for the small rear facing garages of the home. (c) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposal is to allow for an accessory structure, which is a typical use in the area. (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. Not applicable. NOTIFICATION Property owners within 350-feet of the subject property were notified of the requests. Staff has not received any comments. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the structure move with conditions listed below. Approval of the variance is recommended based on the preceding findings of fact and subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. Conformance with the Planning Commission Staff Report and plans dated April 28, 2025. 2. Approval is subject to a one-year Sunset Clause; if progress on the proposal is not made within one year of City Council approval, the approval is null and void. 3. The proposed garage must meet all applicable building codes and building permit approval. 4. All work must meet past and necessary HPC review approvals. 5. The foundation must be permitted and constructed prior to moving the structure on site. 6. The building’s condition and appearance must be made to be in good repair without any missing, broken, or rotten components. 7. The project must be completed by May 5, 2027 ATTACHMENTS • Aerial map • Supplemental application materials • Structure photos • Site photos • Plans Aerial Map Garage door location proposed Arrows pointing to stakes of garage location without variance. Applicant: Trailer representing structure corners and height to show spacial relations and proximity to slope and trees. 413 2nd St. W. The following page shows an elevation diagram from the applicant of the grade differential between the required setback and the requested 5-foot variance.