HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120507 - VIII-B-4
To: Mayor Hicks & City Council From: John Hinzman, Community Development Director Date: May 7, 2012 Item: Resolution – Deny Variance – Sideyard Setback – McCoy (209 7th St W) City Council
Action Requested: Consider the request of Andy McCoy to vary 4.0 feet from the 7 foot sideyard setback requirement (3.0 feet from side property line) to construct a garage at 209 7th
Street W. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at the April 9, 2012 Planning Commission and voted 6-0 to recommend tabling of the issue to allow the applicant to modify the application.
Background Information: Background information and analysis of the request is included in the Planning Commission Memorandum. Financial Impact: The request should not have an effect
on the City Budget; application fees have been collected to defer city costs for review. Advisory Commission Discussion: The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the
request at the April 23, 2012 Meeting. Commissioners cited lack of a hardship in making their their decision; it appeared the garage could be constructed at the minimum setback with
minimal disruption to the property. Comments for and against the request were heard; a petition in support of the request was presented. Please see the attached Planning Commission Minutes
and Petition for further information. Council Committee Discussion: None Attachments: ! Resolution for Denial ! Planning Commission Minutes -April 23, 2012 ! Petition in Support of Application
! Planning Commission Staff Report – April 23, 2012 City Council Memorandum
HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ______________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS DENYING THE REQUEST OF ANDY MCCOY TO VARY FROM HASTINGS CITY CODE 155.50
AT 209 7TH STREET W Council member ___________________________ introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, Andy McCoy, property owner, has petitioned for a four
foot variance from the seven foot minimum R-2 Side Yard Setback requirement of Hastings City Code 155.50 to allow construction of an attached garage generally located at 209 7th Street
West, legally described as Lot 2, Block 54, TOWN OF HASTINGS, Dakota County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Hastings serving as the
Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals held reviewed the petition as required by state law, city charter and city ordinance; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend
denial of the petition; and WHEREAS, The City Council has reviewed the petition and concurs with the opinion 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 denies the variance request as presented based on the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1) The request is not
in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance. The purpose of the side yard setback it to keep side yards free of structures and the intent is to provide a uniform development
pattern, which assures that adjacent side yards will have adequate open space and separation from the built environment. The proposed variance reduction from seven feet to three feet
constitutes a reduction of greater than fifty percent of the required setback. 2) The Applicant has not demonstrated practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and
other reasonable alternatives for similar use of the property are available to the Applicant. The proposed garage could be reduced in width and relocated further east to meet setback
requirements with minimal disruption to the property.
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 7, 2012, 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 7th day of May, 2012, 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 (JWH) 101 4th Street East Hastings, Minnesota 55033
Planning Commission Minutes – April 23, 2012 Tabled -Andy McCoy – Variance #2012-15 – Vary from sideyard setback – 209 7th Street W. Hinzman presented the staff report. Commissioner
Slaten asked what the procedure would be for the applicant to reinstall his driveway onto 7th Street. Hinzman said an administrative curb cut permit from the Engineering Department and
HPC approval. Commissioner Bullington said he concurs with the staff and HPC’s positions on denial of the application. He added that he is struck by the fact that the applicant redrew
his proposal to lessen the amount of encroachment, but increased the size of the garage. He further stated it appears the garage could be constructed without a variance if he would move
the garage further east into the existing flowerbed and reduced the width 2 feet to match the original request. He finished by saying that when you buy a house built in 1875 that is
located in a historic district you should be aware that there is some expectation that the character of of the property and area will remain the same. Commissioner Vaughan asked if they
have been presented with building plans of the addition. Hinzman said the Planning Commission has not. Fortney added that the HPC has seen some sketch drawings of the proposal. Vaughan
asked if the proposal allows enough green space, even if the garage is moved further from the side property line. Hinzman said yes. City Councilmember Joe Balsanek of 224 7th Street
West read a petition addressed to him that was signed by about 12 of the area residents in favor of the application. Commissioner Estenson said the HPC is setup for protecting the district
as a whole and this petition shows that there is a sizable demographic of that district that is in favor of the proposal. He added that as a result of this petition, he is currently
in favor of the variance. Slaten said the hardship was created by the applicant himself which is one of the most important reasons to not approve a variance. Chair Stevens said the 2008
HPC staff report report says the setback was 5-feet, has this changed since then. Hinzman said a detached garage must be setback 5-feet, but an attached garage must be the same distance
from the property line as the main structure, which is 7-feet. Hinzman added that this is the same today as in 2008. Heritage Preservation Commissioner Rita Dahl, owner of 205 7th Street
West stated that the petition read aloud contained errors regarding her property. She stated that her garage was built in compliance with all requirements and after applying for a variance,
has a setback of 10’. She also stated that she is not opposed to an addition or the construction of a new detached garage. Motion by Commissioner Bullington to deny the request base
on the findings in the staff report. Second by Commissioner Slaten. Upon vote taken, Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion passed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission From: John Hinzman, Community Development Director Date: April 23, 2012 Item: Variance, Continued – Sideyard setback – Andy McCoy
– 209 7th Street W REQUEST Consider the request of Andy McCoy to vary 4.0 feet from the 7 foot sideyard setback requirement (3.0 feet from side property line) to construct a garage at
209 7th Street W. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at the April 9, 2012 Planning Commission and voted 6-0 to recommend tabling of the issue to allow the applicant to modify
the application. MODIFICATIONS Mr. McCoy has modified the variance request. The home addition meets the seven foot minimum setback requirement; however the attached garage does not.
4/9 PC Proposal 4/23 PC Proposal Home Setback 2.5’ 7’ Home Addition 460 s.f. 340 s.f. Garage Setback 2.5’ 3’ Garage width 22’ 24’ Garage depth 24’ 26’ Garage area 528 s.f. 624 s.f. BACKGROUND
INFORMATION Comprehensive Plan Classification The 2030 Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Low Density Residential. The proposed use is consistent with the plan. Zoning Classification
The property is zoned R-2 – Residential Medium Density. The existing residential use conforms to the zoning ordinance Adjacent Zoning and Land Use Direction Property Use Zoning Comp
Plan North 7th Street W Residential R-2 Low Density Residential East Residential R-2 Low Density Residential South Alley St John’s Church R-2 Low Density Residential West Residential
R-2 Low Density Residential
Existing Condition The property contains a 1,920 s.f. house constructed in 1875 and a 528 s.f. detached garage. The existing detached garage is 2.5 feet from the west side property line.
The property is 9,198 s.f. (66’ x 140’). Proposed Improvements The applicant proposes to construct a +/-340 s.f. home addition and +/-624 s.f. attached garage onto the southwest portion
of the existing home. The existing detached garage would be removed to facilitate the addition. Zoning Setbacks Setback Required Existing Proposed Home & Garage -West Side 7’ +/-12’
3’ Detached Garage – West Side 5’ 2.6’* Removed Detached Garage -Rear 5’ <5’* Removed *Lawfully Non-conforming – garage constructed prior to adoption of Zoning Ordinance. Notification
Notification of the request was mailed to all adjacent property owners. No comments have been received. Heritage Preservation Commission Review The property is subject to Heritage Preservation
Commission (HPC) Review. On March 20, 2012 the HPC denied the applicant’s request to construct a building addition and attached garage, citing the following: 1. The size of the structure
after the addition would not be in scale with the surrounding houses because of it large size. 2. The proposed side setback of 2.5-feet is not consistent with other houses in the area.
3. The proposal includes the demolition or loss of the historic garage, which appears to be in fair condition. 4. The proposal included fake windows because of the proposed substandard
setback, which is not a historic feature of a house. VARIANCE REVIEW Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals The Planning Commission acts as the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals
in consideration of variance requests per Section 30.02 of the Hastings City Code. Variance Review The Planning Commission may consider variances to the Zoning Code that are not be 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:
(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; Unique conditions or surroundings do not exist. The property is relatively flat and of similar size to
surrounding properties. (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 one note applicable, generally,
to other property with the same zoning classification; The applicant contends the variance should be granted because the home addition and detached garage would be no closer to the side
property line than the existing detached garage (to be removed). Removal of the detached garage eliminates any grandfather rights to the side yard setback. A garage could be constructed
elsewhere on the property and conform to the minimum setback requirements. (3) The purpose purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land; Undetermined. The addition adds value to the property and allows greater use by the owner. (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 in absence of a unique situation or practical
difficulty could unilaterally change the setback of structures to that requested by the applicant. (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; (Prior Code, §11.08) Granting the variance would have a limited affect on public safety issues. Construction of the addition in close proximity to the property line may
negatively affect the abutting property. (6) The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of ordinance; The intent of the setback ordinance is to provide adequate separation
between structures. The proposed variance is significantly less than the required setback. (7) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The proposed variance would have
limited affect on the comprehensive plan. (8) The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner; The addition to the home is reasonable.
(9) There are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that; Practical difficulties
have not been presented. The applicant could reduce the garage width from 24’ to 22’ (as originally proposed) and move the garage two feet further to the east and meet the 7’ setback
without impacting the existing maple tree. The applicant could rehabilitate the existing garage at its current location, or construct a new garage meeting the setback requirements. The
existing home is of similar size to others in the neighborhood. Improvements to the building could be accomplished without a variance. RECOMMENDATION Denial of the variance request is
recommended. ATTACHMENTS ! Location Map ! Site Plan ! Application
Revised Site Plan