HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 - Variance - 809 6th St W
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Justin Fortney, City Planner
Date: June 14, 2021
Item: Variance #2021-26 – Accessory Structure Side Setback – 809 6th Street W
Planning Commission Action Requested
The Planning Commission is asked to review the following variance and make a recommendation
to the City Council.
1) A variance to the minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure. Chapter 155.05,
Subd. (D)(11) – Accessory structures/buildings setbacks: R-2, side = 5-feet
Background Information
The home was built in 1948 with a detached garage having been built at an unknown time. The
garage was construct about 2.5-feet from the side property line, based on a 2003 site plan from
an architect who submitted plans for an addition to the home.
In August of 2020 the garage was damaged by vehicle. As a result, the applicants planned to
demolish the garage and rebuild it. They did not act at the time due to a lack of building material
availability. This spring, they demolished the garage prior to submitting plans for a new garage.
The garage included a rear and side shed roof for storage and a patio covering, which are included
in the reconstruction proposal.
A new accessory structure must meet the current setback requirements. The only exception is if
a legally nonconforming structure is damaged by more than 50% of its value, it may be rebuilt if a
building permit is obtained within 180-days. The applicants did not apply for a building permit
within the required timeline or prior to demolishing the garage. The extent of the damage to the
former garage is not known, but may have been in excess of 50% of its value. The applicant’s
contractor said he just assumed you could rebuild a nonconforming structure if you use the same
foundation.
The applicants believe moving the garage would create issues with misaligning of the driveway
and not allowing the use of the existing foundation. There is also not enough room for the
required 6-foot setback between the house and garage without also moving the garage further
back. The size of the patio would also be diminished.
Planning Commission Memorandum
Variance Definition
Variances are deviations from strict compliance of City Code provisions. The Board of Adjustment
and Appeals may issue a variance upon determination of findings of fact and conclusions
supporting the variance as established in Chapter 30.02, Subd. F of the City Code.
Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals
Hastings City Code Chapter 30.02 establishes the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals and
appoints the City Council and Planning Commission to facilitate the Board’s roles and duties.
Applications for Variances require Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals review.
Variance Review
City Code Chapter 30.02(F) establishes the requirement for granting variances. The Planning
Commission (acting in part as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals) may consider variances to the
Zoning Code that are not 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 (staff review appears in bold
italics):
(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; The physical
surroundings include an existing home built in 1948 and an existing garage foundation/ slab.
(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 not applicable, generally, to other property with the same
zoning classification; The conditions above are fairly unique to the subject tract of land. While
there may be several other garages with substandard side setbacks, they are typically built
behind the home rather than between the side of the home and the property line. Additionally,
the garage was damaged and could have been reconstructed under State Statute 394.36 Subd.
4 and City Code Chapter 155.06(D)(2) had the owners applied for a building permit sooner.
(3) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land; The owner doesn’t seek to obtain the variance exclusively
to increase the value or income potential of the lot, as the variance is necessary to reconstruct
the damaged garage.
(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
would allow for the reconstruction of the former garage that had not been detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the vicinity.
(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;
It does not appear that the variance will impair light, air, congestion, fire danger, public safety,
or property values within the vicinity, as the site will be developed similar to the former garage.
(6) The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of ordinance; Yes, the purpose and
intent of the ordinance is to provide ample separation between structures for aesthetics and fire
protection. The neighboring garage is setback 16-feet from the property line and the proposed
garage to be reconstructed would also include fire proofing to maintain required fire
separations.
(7) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; Yes, the Comprehensive Plan guides
this area as residential. This would allow accessory uses, although specifics including setbacks
are generally not addressed.
(8) The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner; Reconstruction of a damaged
detached garage is certainly reasonable.
(9) There are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties”, as
used in connection with the granting of the variance means that:
(a) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by an official control; Yes, as stated in number 8 above.
(b) The practical difficulty is caused by the provisions of this chapter and has not been
created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land; The
practical difficulties were created by the changing of official controls over time, unavailable
building materials last fall, and accidental damage to the former garage.
1. A practical difficulty is not present if the proposal could be reasonably accomplished
under the current Ordinance requirements. The applicant cannot accomplish the proposal
under the current ordinance requirements.
(c) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The parcel
will develop consistent with the way the property has existed for a number of decades.
(d) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant has
not stated any financial reasoning for the variance.
(e) Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the variance is recommended based on the preceding findings of fact and subject to
the following conditions.
Conditions
1. Conformance with the Planning Commission Staff Report and plans dated June 14, 2021.
2. Approval is subject to a one-year Sunset Clause; if progress on the proposal is not made
within one year of City Council approval, the approval is null and void.
3. Building permit approval including any necessary fireproofing.
ATTACHMENTS
• Location Map
• Site Photos
• 2003 Site Plan
• Plans
Photo prior to garage damage
and demolition
Recent Photo
2003 Architectural Site Plan
6’ required
between
structures
2’ 6” setback
noted
These 6’ Minimums
are required
between structures
Proposed plans and similar to former garage