HomeMy WebLinkAbout201112-05 - VIII-B-1 & VIII-B-2
To: Mayor Hicks & City Councilmembers From: Justin Fortney, Associate Planner Date: December 5, 2011 Item: OHDS Review, and Variance for a new detached garage #2011-51 – 401 Tyler Street.
City Council Action Requested: The City Council is asked to consider the two following requests of Bruce Swanlund: 1) OHDS (Original Hastings Design Guidelines) review for a proposed
detached garage. 2) 1 ½’ variance from the 6’ structure separation, for the proposed garage. Background Information: The applicant is proposing to build a detached garage on his property
in the OHDS district. Since the house was positioned in the middle of the lot the applicant has applied for a variance to facilitate placement in the rear of the property. To become
more in line with the Comprehensive Plan, staff has recommended that the property is rezoned to residential. If ordered, the City Council will hold a public hearing on December 19th
to consider the rezoning. Consideration of the rezoning may be done independently of the OHDS and variance reviews. OHDS The intent of the OHDS (Original Hastings Design Standards) it
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. The standards call for garages to use consistent materials as the house. The structure is proposed to be 20’ wide by 44’ deep (880 Sq Ft) with a 5/12 pitched
gable roof, 4 ¼” lap siding to match the house, 3 windows, 16’ overhead door, and a service door. There is no alley access so the garage will access 4th Street. Variance The lot is somewhat
larger than other lots in the area, but the house was positioned in the middle of it. As a result, there is not a great deal of usable space in any one particular area of City Council
Memorandum
the property. The zoning code requires a 6’ separation between structures for aesthetics. In order to fit a garage with a common width of 20’ and meet the side setback requirement of
5’, the garage would be about 4 ½’ from the house. The applicant does not wish to attach the garage to the house because that would not be historically appropriate. The Building code
requires a minimum of 3’ between structures. Findings Below are the standards that must be applied to the review of a variance. • Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of ordinance?
Yes there will still be a separation between the structures • Is variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Yes along with the rezoning, the property will be more in line with
the comprehensive plan. • Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Yes, most residential properties in Hastings have garages and detached garages are prevalent in the
OHDS district. • Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Yes, Yes, the house sits in the middle of the lot. Homes are mostly located closer to the
front of the lot allowing for ample room to locate a garage in the rear and meet required setbacks. • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? No.
Financial Impact: None Advisory Commission Discussion: The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the OHDS Review and 5-1 to recommend approval of the variance (Bullington
opposed (see attached Minutes)) at the November 28, 2011 meeting. No one from the public spoke for or against the item. Council Committee Discussion: N/A Attachments: • Resolution –
OHDS • Resolution – Variance • Site location Map • Site Plan • Garage Elevation Drawings • Property photographs\ • Minutes from the November 28th Planning commission meeting (unapproved)
HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS GRANTING ORIGINAL HASTINGS DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A DETACHED GARAGE AT 401 TYLER STREET -BRUCE SWANLUND Council member ___________________________ introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, Bruce Swanlund has
petitioned for an application to construct a detached garage at 401 Tyler Street legally described as follows: The North 78 FT of the West 48 FT of Lot 3 and the North 78 FT of Lot 4,
Block 32, Town of Hastings Blks 1 Thru 99 Addition, Hastings, Dakota County, MN; and WHEREAS, property improvements are subject to City Code Chapter 155.07, Subd. (D) Original Hastings
Design Standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Hastings recommended approval of the request. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS
AS FOLLOWS: That the City Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and hereby approves the Original Hastings Design Standards Review as presented to the City
Council subject to the following conditions: 1) Conformance with the City Council Staff Report and plans dated December 5th 2011. 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 _____________________ 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 December 5, 2011, by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: ATTEST: ______________________________ Paul J. Hicks, Mayor _____________________________________ Adeline
Schroeder, Deputy 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 December, 2011, as disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the office. ______________________________ Adeline Schroeder,
Deputy 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 GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE STRUCTURE SEPARATION AT 401 TYLER STREET -BRUCE SWANLUND
Council member _______________________ introduced the following Resolution and ___________________ moved its adoption: WHEREAS, Bruce Swanlund, owner, has petitioned for a variance to
build a detached structure within the 6-foot structure separation from another structure located at 401 Tyler Street, legally described The North 78 FT of the West 48 FT of Lot 3 and
the North 78 FT of Lot 4, Block 32, Town of Hastings Blks 1 Thru 99 Addition, Hastings, Dakota County, MN; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2011, the request was reviewed by 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; and NOW THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS AS FOLLOWS: That the City Council hereby approves the variance as presented to the City Council based on the following findings
of fact: 1. Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of ordinance? Yes there will still be a separation between the structures
2. Is variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Yes along with the rezoning, the property will be more in line with the comprehensive plan. 3. Does proposal put property to use
in a reasonable manner? Yes, most residential properties in Hastings have garages and detached garages are prevalent in the OHDS district. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property
not created by the landowner? Yes, the house sits in the middle of the lot. Homes are mostly located closer to the front of the lot allowing for ample room to locate a garage in the
rear and meet required setbacks. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? No. That the City Council hereby approves the proposed variance as presented
to the City Council with the following condition: 1) The variance only applies to the house and proposed addition. 2) Conformance with the City Council Staff Report and plans dated December
5th 2011. 3) Approval of a building permit. 4) 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 __________________ moved a second to this resolution and upon being put to a vote adopted by _____ present. Ayes:
____ Nays: _____ Absent: ______ ATTEST: ______________________________ Paul J. Hicks, Mayor _____________________________________ Adeline Schroeder, Deputy 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 December 2011, as disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the office.
Adeline Schroeder, Deputy City Clerk (SEAL) This instrument drafted by: City of Hastings (JJF) 101 4th St. East Hastings, MN 55033
Site Plan
East West North South
Hastings Planning Commission November 28, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes –NOT APPROVED Vice Chair Stevens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Stevens,
Bullington, Estenson, Messina, Rohloff, and Vaughan Commissioners Absent: Peine Staff Present: Community Development Director John Hinzman 2. Approval of Minutes – November 14, 2011
Motion by Commissioner Rohloff to approve the November 14, 2011 minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Estenson. Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. City of Hastings – Rezoning #2011-51 – Rezone Home from C-3 Community Regional Commerce to R-2 Medium Density Residence – 401 Tyler Street. Director Hinzman presented the combined
staff report for the Rezoning, Variance, and Original Hastings Design Standards Review. Vice Chair Stevens opened the Public Hearing at 7:04. Hearing no comments from the audience, Vice
Chair Stevens closed the Public Hearing at 7:04. Commissioner Vaughan asked if the UBC building building next door was zoned industrial. Director Hinzman stated that it was. Would the
future use of Red Rock Corridor affect the desire to rezone the property? Director Hinzman stated he believes the visibility of the building limits its use for future commercial businesses.
Commissioner Bullington asked if the property needed to be rezoned to consider the garage application. Director Hinzman stated it did not. The rezoning was at Staff’s request to better
reflect the property’s current use. Motion by Estenson to recommend approval of the Rezoning, second by Rohloff. Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. OTHER ACTIONS DRAFT
City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes – November 28, 2011 Page 2 of 4 4. Bruce Swanlund – Variance & Original Hastings Design Standards Review #2011-52 – Variance to the Minimum
Structure Separation Requirement to construct a new garage – 401 Tyler St. Commissioner Bullington asked for verification of the five foot setback from property line. Director Hinzman
confirmed the measurement. Commissioner Bullington asked for clarification that the building code requires a three foot separation between buildings as opposed to the Zoning Code requirement
of six feet; does one supersede the other? Director Hinzman stated the Commissioner was correct and that the Building Code generally supersedes the Zoning Code, however the Zoning Code
can be more restrictive as in this case. Commissioner Bullington asked the applicant what the purpose of the garage was for and whether a garage has ever been on the property. Mr. Swanlund
responded the garage was for his personal property and he was not aware of a garage on the property in the past. Commissioner Bullington stated he was not comfortable with varying the
zoning provisions for a secondary structure, citing aesthetics and character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Estenson stated the placement of the building was not done by the applicant
and the variance does appear to be grossly outside of the zoning requirements. Mr. Swanlund asked for clarification the building height limit. Director Hinzman stated the accessory building
height was limited to 16 feet. Motion by Messina to recommend approval of the Original Hastings Design Standards review with the following conditions. Second by Estenson. Upon vote taken,
Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. 1) Conformance with the Planning Commission Staff Report and plans dated November 28th 2011. 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. Discussion
continued on the Variance request. Commissioner Vaughan asked about any greenspace requirements. Director Hinzman stated that there is a 35 percent greenspace requirement in the rear
yard.
City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes – November 28, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Vaughan asked for clarification on how the rear yard was determined on this structure. Director
Hinzman stated the area south of the house was determined to be the rear yard. Discussion continued as to whether the east side should be considered the rear. The east side of the home
is opposite of Tyler Street where the home is addressed and a door is located. Director Hinzman stated that doors exist on both the north and west side of the property, making the rear
yard determination up for interpretation. Vice Chair Stevens asked for clarification on where the rear yard begins. Director Hinzman stated all property located behind the house; if
the east side of the property where the garage is proposed to be located is considered the rear, the garage likely exceeds the 35% green space requirement. The Commission may want to
consider that in the variance. Commissioner Vaughan asked if the applicant could change his address to 4th Street to avoid (thus designating the area south of the home as the rear yard)
to avoid any conflicts with the 35% rear yard coverage? He asked that staff review the greenspace requirements with the Planning Commission at a future meeting date. Director Hinzman
stated the setback requirements have been used to create greenspace and cautioned against using homes that preexisted the zoning code as examples. Commissioner Estenson stated the 35%
requirement came after the subject home was moved into place. The applicant could attach the garage to the building and not be subject to accessory structure requirements; the attachment
would not be aesthetic given the historic home. Commissioner Bullington questioned whether a garage should be built on this property; it might detract from the historic nature of the
area. The location of the garage would violate the letter of the zoning ordinance. He cautioned setting a precedent in this instance. Commissioner Estenson stated that he agreed in being
cautious in setting precedent, but believed the reasons for granting a variance in this instance, as presented in the staff report had merit. Vice Chair Stevens asked for clarification
of the setback requirements if the garage was attached to the house. Director Hinzman stated it would be subject to the primary structure requirements. Vice Chair Stevens stated he believes
the east side of the home (location of the garage) should be determined to be the rear. Commissioner Estenson asked how other cities designate front and side of properties. Director
Hinzman stated Hastings City Code appears consistent with other cities. He further stated this was an unusual circumstance where the house was located in the center of the lot. Commissioner
Bullington stated he is concerned with setting a precedent. He further stated that in some cities you are not allowed to place a garage on certain lots.
City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes – November 28, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Messina stated that the neighborhood surrounding the application has two car garages. Placing
a similar garage at this location would be consistent with the neighborhood. Motion by Vaughan to recommend approval of the Variance to the Minimum Accessory Structure Setback from Primary
Structure, subject to the findings of fact of the staff report. Second by Estenson. Upon vote taken, Ayes 5, Nays 1 (Bullington). Motion carried. Commissioner Vaughan asked that the
minutes from the meeting be presented to the City Council and that the Planning Commission review greenspace requirements at a future meeting. 5. Other Business Director Hinzman updated
the Planning Commission on upcoming meeting items. 6. Adjourn Motion by Commissioner Vaughan to adjourn the November 28, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Second by Commissioner Messina.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Next Planning Commission Meeting – Monday, December 12, 2011. Respectfully submitted, _________________________
__ John Hinzman Recording Secretary