The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20080505 - VIII-B-2 Memo VIII-B-2 To: Mayor Hicks and City Council From: Justin Fortney, Associate Planner Date: May 5, 2008 Subject: Thomas Dunlap and Mary Christensen - Original Hastings Design Standards Review and Variance #2008-12...,. Enlarge Garage and attach it to the house - 422 6th Street West REQUEST The applicants propose to increase the size of their garage and connect it to the house with a breezeway. The property is subject to Original Hastings Design Standards (OHDS) requirements, which is subject to Planning Commission Review and City Council Approval. The present location of the garage meets setback requirements for a detached structure (5' minimum for a side-loaded garage from the rear property line). Since the garage will be attached to the house the setback requirements for principal structures apply (20' minimum from the property line). A similar request was granted about 10 years ago at 419 6th S t W. RECOMMENDA TION The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the request at the April 28, 2008 meeting with limited discussion. No one spoke for or against the item. ATTACHMENTS · OHDS Resolution · Variance Resolution · Location Map · Site Photographs . Site Plan HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS GRANTING ORIGINAL HASTINGS DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A DETACHED GARAGE TO BE ENLARGED AND CONNECTED TO THE HOME AT 422 6TH STREET WEST - THOMAS DUNLAP Council member. moved its adoption: introduced the following Resolution and WHEREAS, Thomas Dunlap has petitioned for approval to enlarge a garage and construct a breezeway between it and the home at 422 6th Street West legally described as follows: Lot 5, Block 40, Town of Hastings Block 1 thru 99, Dakota County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, property improvements are subject to City Code Chapter 155.07, Subd D - Original Hastings Design Standards; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2008, review was conducted before the Planning Commission of the City of Hastings, as required by state law, city charter and city ordinance; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to the City Council subject to the conditions contained herein; and WHEREAS The City Council has reviewed the request 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: That the City Council hereby approves the Original Hastings Design Standards Review as presented to the City Council subject to the following conditions: 1) Proposed siding and roofing improvements must be completed consistent with the plans presented to the Planning Commission. 2) Approval of a building permit. 3) Approval is subject to a one year Sunset Clause; if significant progress is not made towards construction of the proposal within one year of City Council approval, the approval is null and void. Council member vote adopted by _ present. moved a second to this resolution and upon beingput to a Ayes: _ Nays: _ Absent: Paul J. Hicks, Mayor ATTEST: Melanie Mesko Lee City Clerk (City Seal) 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 5th day of May, 2008, as disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the office. Melanie Mesko Lee City Clerk (SEAL) This instrument drafted by: City of Hastings (JJF) 101 4th St. East Hastings, MN 55033 HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS APPROVING A REAR YARD VARIANCE TO THOMAS DUNLAP AT 422 6TH STREET WEST, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Council member moved its adoption: introduced the following Resolution and WHEREAS, Thomas Dunlap has petitioned for a variance from Ordinance 155, Section 155.50 requiring a five-foot setback. The applicant is requesting a thirteen-foot setback to allow for the attaching of a detached garage to the house. The subject property is legally described as Lot 5, Block 40, Town of Hastings Block I thru 99, Dakota County, Minnesota WHEREAS, on April 28, 2008, a public hearing on the proposed variance was conducted before the Planning Commission of the City of Hastings, said hearing was preceded by notification as required by state law, city charter and city; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission ofthe City of Hastings recommends approval of the variance as requested for the reasons included in this resolution. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS AS FOLLOWS: That the City Council of the City of Hastings concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and hereby approves the variance as requested based on the following findings offact: A. The home and the neighboring home were uniquely placed 75' back from the front property line, where as homes are normally 20' back from the front property line. R The proposal will not result in any further encroachment to the rear property line. C. The proposed breezeway that will connect the house to the garage will be adjacent to the existing garage wall on the property to the east, thereby not blocking any existing lateral open space. D. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant as the home was built closer to the rear of the property rather than the front. E. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege as appropriate hardships have been determined. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the following: 1. A copy of this resolution shall be filed with the Dakota County Recorder's Office by the Hastings City Clerk. Council member moved a second to this resolution, and upon being put to a vote it was unanimously adopted by all Council members present. Adopted by the Hastings City Council on May 5, 2008, by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: ATTEST: Paul J. Hicks, Mayor Melanie Mesko Lee, City Clerk (City Seal) 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 5th day of May, 2008, as disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the office. Melanie Mesko Lee, City Clerk (SEAL) This instrument drafted by: City of Hastings (JJF) 101 4th St. East Hastings, MN 55033 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Comprehensive Plan Classification The property conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan designates the property as U-I - Urban Residential (1-3 units per acre) Zoning Classification The subject property is zoned R-2\OHDS - Residential Medium Density\Original Hastings Design Standards. Single-family homes are a permitted use subject to Design Standards Requirements. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use The following land uses abut the property: Direction North East South Existing Use Single Family Home Single Family Home 6th Street Single Family Home Forest Street Single Family Home Zoning R-2\OHDS R-2\OHDS Como Plan U-I - Res. U-I - Res. R-2\OHDS U-I- Res. West R-2\OHDS U-I - Res. Existing Condition The existing garage was constructed in 1994 and is in good condition. The existing home was constructed in 1885. Proposed Condition The applicant proposes to expand the existing 14' x 20' (280 s.f.) garage to 20'x 22' (440 s.f.). This will require the roof to be rebuilt to accommodate a larger span. The garage would be attached to the house by a 13' x 17' (221 s. f.) breezeway. OHDS REVIEW OHDS Intent Original Hastings Design Standards (OHDS) preserve and enhance traditional neighborhood design by reflecting the general characteristics of buildings dating from 1845 to 1940, which is the predominate era for building construction within the OHDS District. OHDS regulations ensure traditional neighborhood design by incorporating design features such as alleys, carriage houses, front porches, period sensitive housing design, sidewalks, and traditional street lighting. Design standards create and enhance the character of older neighborhoods by establishing regulation to guide property development and rehabilitation consistent with the unique historic character of the neighborhood. The OHDS are derived from the Design Guidelinesfor Original Hastings, adopted in 2003 by the City Council as part of the Heart of Hastings Master Plan. OHDS regulations are located found in Chapter 10.14, Subd. 4 of the Hastings City Code Garage Location and Access OHDS prohibits new garages from directly abutting a public street if an improved alley way abuts the property. Currently the driveway enters onto the alley from the side-loaded garage. This same situation is proposed after the garage is expanded. Garage Exterior Materials 4" lap vinyl siding would be used on the garage and the breezeway to mach the 4" lap vinyl siding of the house. Roof Materials The applicant is proposing a shingled gable roof over the breezeway and a shingled slant roof over the garage as depicted on the attachment. Asphalt shingles meet OHDS requirements, but the guidelines do not address pitch for additions to the rear of a structure. Pitch requirements: Front Yard: Steep pitch- (8: 12 minimum) Gable roof. Lower pitch-Italianate hip or porch roof. Garage/ Alley Same as main building VARIANCE REVIEW & ANALYSIS Review Criteria The following criteria have been used as findings of fact in granting variances to zoning provisions: A. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. B. The literal interpretation ofthe City Code would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of Chapter 10. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Chapter 15 to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use oflands, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Recommended Action Approval of the variance is recommended based on the following findings of fact and hardships: 1. The intent of the ordinance is to not allow a continuous line of structure from the front building line all the way to the rear property line. This would be overwhelming to the enjoyment and privacy of adjacent property owners. In this particular situation there are four unique circumstances which are peculiar to the situation, which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. F. The home on the property is uniquely placed 75' back from the front property line, where as homes are normally 20' back from the front property line. G. The adjacent home to the east is also 75' back from the front property line. H. The property is located on a comer lot, thereby not affecting a property owner to the west. I. There is an alley to the north thereby providing a buffer to that property, which also has a garage off of the alley. The unique situation of these two homes place the emphasis on property enjoyment and privacy in the front yards rather than the rear yards. This is also evident in the fact that both homes have decks and substantial landscaping in the front yards rather than the rear yards. With this being the case, it may be more prudent to add onto the back of the home rather than the front. 2. The proposal will not result in any further encroachment to the rear property line. 3. The proposed breezeway that will connect the house to the garage will be adjacent to the existing garage wall on the property to the east, thereby not blocking any existing lateral open space. 4. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant as the home was built closer to the rear of the propeliy rather than the front. 5. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege as appropriate hardships have been determined. Notification of Adjoining Property Owners Notification was sent to adjoining property owners. No comments have been received at this time. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the variance and OHDS is recommended subject to the following conditions: 4) Proposed siding and roofing improvements must be completed consistent with the plans presented to the Planning Commission. 5) Approval of a building permit. 6) Approval is subject to a one year Sunset Clause; if significant progress is not made towards construction of the proposal within one year of City Council approval, the approval is null and void. (Jj (Jj (Jj (Jj (Jj (Jj w CIJ 01 ->. a (Jj a -. (Jj (Jj (Jj ,.... ~ .p.. w (Jj .p.. w CD (Jj ~ w (Jj (Jj (Jj co .p.. .p.. ->. H r ->. en a <0 (Jj (Jj -t (Jj (Jj u: 0 w w W ->. tv (J1 :I: .p.. "-l en '" (") (J1 (J1 (Jj (Jj '+2 Q) tv tv tv H OJ <0 en co (Jj ,.... -. (Jj (Jj -t (Jj (J1 ~ 0 tv ->. tv ->. a "-l tv W (Jj (Jj ~ (Jj (Jj :] ->. ->. ->. a .p.. (J1 .p.. (Jj S (J1 (J1 Q) a a (Jj <0 OJ a "'C w FOREST ST .j::.. .p.. N tv N W .p.. .p.. .p.. ->. ->. (Jj .p.. ;:::;: i (J1 C1) .p.. Ir- a 0' ;0 .p.. co Illl ' a ill "2l g. ->. a a gl:~mm ASHLAND ST w w W tv tv tv ->. a w w W ->. (J1 .p.. a "-l w W ->. a ->. co W w w a a a ->. W 0 09C' ",f) /J /)~Y l' "~ .~ ~ /l~d$ Ie, / ,,((!'fS ~'l oZo ~ b~.5'" / /Jt!df ~.AJI"'Jf"C~ a" - /1./>"-7 -/ /;' ~eol I'.J ~~ Sf . ~ I'.J ":J I'.J -:K o ;;l..;J.. t -... w t ~ () /lc~c:l.s 0 10 be. 7 9-0 ~g-7 ~ ~. ~