HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120521 - VIII-B-1
To: Mayor Hicks & City Council From: John Hinzman, Community Development Director Date: May 21, 2012 Item: Resolution – Deny Variance – Side yard Setback – McCoy (209 7th St W) City
Council Action Requested: Consider the request of Andy McCoy to vary from the side yard setback requirements of the R-2 – Medium Density Residence Zoning District to construct a home
addition and attached garage at 209 7th Street W. The City Council reviewed the request at the May 7th City Council meeting, voting 5-0 to table action. Since May 7th, the applicant
has modified the request to place structures nearer to the side property line, increasing the variance amount as follows: Setback May 21st City Council Variance Request May 7th City
Council Variance Request Home Addition 0.5 feet (7 feet required) No variance needed Attached Garage 5.4 feet (7 feet required) 4.0 feet (7 feet required) City Forester Review On May
14th, the City Forester met with staff and the applicant to review potential impacts of the proposed construction on an existing maple tree. The City Forester recommended the following:
! Provide a minimum 10 foot setback between the trunk of the tree and any structure. ! Existing setback between the tree and garage is 18 feet. ! The proposed garage could be moved eight
feet further east without impacting the tree. Recommendation Review by the City Forester provides further evidence that the applicant could construct a 24 foot wide garage as proposed
and meet the minimum seven foot side yard setback as well as the ten foot recommended clearance from the existing maple tree. Denial of the variance request for both the home addition
and garage is recommended. Please see attached drawing. 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. City Council Memorandum
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
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 ! Applicant Revised Site Plan – May 14, 2012 ! Proposed City Changes to Revised Site Plan – May 16, 2012 ! Letter in Support – Nosan – May 6, 2012 ! Petition in Support of Application
– April 23, 2012 ! Planning Commission Minutes -April 23, 2012 ! Planning Commission Staff Report – April 23, 2012
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 21, 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 21st 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
Applicant Revised Site Plan – May 14, 2012
From: Brian & Dayna Nosan 215 West 7th Street Dear Council Members, I'm writing in regards to the addition that Andy and Martha McCoy are proposing to build. I want to quickly tell you
about a few items I hope you'll consider in this matter. My wife and I moved into our new home and neighborhood on November 1st of 2011 and couldn't be happier. We found our dream home
in our dream town and are surrounded by dream neighbors. We've met nearly everyone that lives within a block or two of our new home and everyone has welcomed us with open arms. One of
these neighbors has gone above and beyond and his name is Andy McCoy. Here's a few stories that I hope you take into consideration: Before we could secure our home loan we were told
we had to get rid of any loose paint, repair the back deck and install a railing on the front porch. Andy was there with all the ladders, tools and expertise we needed to make these
things happen. He stopped just short of giving us the keys to his garage and work truck... Instead, he just left his truckload of tools unlocked in our driveway. Not only did Andy provide
the necessary equipment to get these tasks done, he taught me how to repair the giant ice-damn hole in our deck. Andy recently took a trip to Texas. Before he left he made sure to knock
on our door and ask how are hunt for a lawn mower was going. “It's going okay,” I said, “Still haven't found the one we want.” Before I could finish my sentence, Andy had turned and
was jogging to his garage. He reappeared 30 seconds later pushing his mower into our garage. “Don't worry about the gas, I just topped 'er off.” When we moved in, we noticed there was
a nice double-oven in the garage which we later found out was Andy's from a kitchen job he'd recently completed. Knowing OUR oven was in need of updating, he offered this amazing new
oven to us for 25% of what it was worth. After agreeing to this steal of a pricetag, we began looking into converting the gas line into electric so our new oven would be functional.
Again, Andy stepped and recommended a local contractor that could take care of the job. Once we had the appointment set up, my wife and I tried to figure out who would take the day off
work to be around while the oven was being installed which I casually mentioned to Andy in passing. With a confused look on his face, Andy immediately responded, “Well I don't see what
the problem is... I'll be in the area all day and can let him in and keep an eye on him.” These were just a few events relating to US in the last six months. I guarantee that if you
go around the neighborhood and ask, you'll here years of stories just like these. It's for this reason that we feel Andy deserves some strong consideration when it comes to the proposed
addition. He's voiced his concern to us, that if he's not able to make the change to his house, he's thinking of finding another neighborhood or even city where he can. While this would
be an amazing addition to THAT community, it would be a terrible loss to ours. Please feel free to contact us anytime regarding this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Brian Nosan
– 763-744-8319 Dayna Nosan -763-670-2552
Planning Commission Minutes – April 23, 2012 Tabled -Andy McCoy – Variance #2012-15 – Vary from side yard 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 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 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