HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission MemorandumPlanning Commission Memorandum
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Justin Fortney, Associate Planner
Date:
May 23, 2011
Item:
Variance – Rear Yard Setback- Bryan Deane - #2011-18 – 1225 View Ct
Planning Commission Action Requested:
The Planning Commission is asked
review the applicants request for a variance to the 20-foot rear yard setback
requirement. The applicant is proposing a 5-foot setback for a rear garage addition.
Background Information:
The applicant is proposing to build an addition to the
rear of his attached garage to make a two stall deep 4-car garage. He would like to
use the addition for woodworking.
Setbacks
The rear yard setback requirement for the main structure is 20-feet from the rear
property line. One purpose of this regulation may be to provide a uniform
development pattern, which assures that adjacent rear yards will have unobstructed
access to open space and separation from the built environment.
Detached accessory structures are allowed in the rear yard up to five-feet from the
rear property line. However, these structures are required be separated from the main
structure by at least six feet. Additionally, these detached structures are generally
shorter than the main structure. For these reasons, detached structures are less likely
to be as overwhelming.
Variance Requirements
A recent court case in Minnesota regarding variances had made it difficult for
municipalities to grant variances except in extreme cases where without a variance
there could be virtually no use of the property.
Since that time, a new state statute regarding variance has been passed (462.357,
subd. 6). The new findings that must be made in order to grant a variance are more
attainable. As long as there are sufficient written findings of fact in support or
denial of a variance, a city’s decision would be consistent with state statute.
City of Hastings
101 Fourth Street EastHastings, MN 55033-1955p:651-480-2350f:651-437-7082www.ci.hastings.mn.us
Findings
Below are the new standards that must be applied to the review of a variance.
• Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of ordinance?
• Is variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
• Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
• Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of ordinance?
The intent of the ordinance it to keep the rear yards free principle structures. The purpose is to
provide a uniform development pattern, which assures that adjacent rear yards will have
unobstructed access to open space and separation from the built environment. With the
proposed addition extending into 75% of the setback it may not meet the intent of the
ordinance.
Is variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
There doesn’t seem to be any aspects of the comprehensive plan that are specific to this
proposal.
Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
The use is an acceptable accessory use to residential (garage).
Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
The lot is on a cul-de-sac, which pushed the front building line back, thereby moving the house
closer to the rear yard. The house was setback about 35-feet further as a result of the cul-de-
sac.
Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
The addition to the rear of the property is visible mostly from the adjacent neighbor’s
house to the east. That neighbor’s property is angled away from the subject property
minimizing any affects to the character of the area, but given the large encroachment
into the rear setback it will still be highly visible to that property.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends denial of the variance due to the above findings of fact not all
being met.
Attachments:
Site Location Map
Aerial Photograph
Application packet