HomeMy WebLinkAboutX-C-03 Resolution Variance - Garage Sideyard Setback - Schmitz (809 6th St W)City Council Memorandum
To: Mayor Fasbender & City Councilmembers
From: Justin Fortney, City Planner
Date: June 21, 2021
Item: Resolution: Variance #2021-26 – Accessory Structure Side Setback – 809 6th
Street W – Lee and Michele Schmit
Council Action Requested:
Review and take action on the attached resolution granting the following variance
request:
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 required
Approval of a variance requires the support of 6 of 7 Councilmembers.
Background Information:
The preexisting garage was damaged and later demolished. It cannot be rebuilt in the
original location due to increased setback requirements.
Please see the attached June 14, 2021 Planning Commission staff report for additional
information.
Financial Impact:
N/A
Advisory Commission Discussion:
The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the request at the June
14, 2021 meeting. No members of the public spoke at the hearing, but staff received the
following two phone messages from neighbors.
Kent Karlsson of 814 6th street W, called June 14, 2021 and stated that he supports the
variance and the existing garage location has not caused any issues.
Thomas Milburn of 600 River St called on June 14, 2021 and stated that he was
supportive of the variance.
Council Committee Discussion:
N\A
Attachments:
• Resolution
• Planning Commission Memo – June 14, 2021
X-C-03
HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO._________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK OF AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 809 6TH STREET W
Council member _______________________ introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
WHEREAS, Lee and Michele Schmit have petitioned for a variance to Hastings
City Code Chapter 155.05, Subd. (D)(11) to vary from the 5-foot side setback
requirement for accessory structures. The property is generally located at 809 6th Street
W, legally described as Lot 4 and the east half of Lot 5, Block 39, Addition Number 13,
Dakota County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2021, 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 findings of fact 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) The physical surroundings include an existing home built in 1948 and an existing
garage foundation from a recently demolished garage that was legally
nonconforming at the time of damage.
2) The site conditions are fairly unique to the subject tract of land. While detached
accessory structures are common in the area, they are typically built behind the
home rather than between the home and the side property line. Additionally, the
garage was damaged and could have been reconstructed under State Statute
X-C-03
394.36 Subd. 4 and City Code Chapter 155.06(D)(2) had the owners applied for a
building permit sooner, but did not, due to a shortage of building materials.
3) 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 structure.
4) 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 and nor should its replacement.
5) The variance will not 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 intent of the ordinance, as 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 Comprehensive Plan guides this area as residential. This would allow
accessory uses, although specifics including setbacks are not addressed.
8) Reconstruction of a damaged structure is certainly putting the property to use in a
reasonable manner.
9) The property owners would suffer practical difficulties by not being allowed to
reconstruct the structure in its original location.
a) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not permitted by an official control
b) 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.These practical difficulties could not be reasonably overcome by
meeting the current ordinance requirements.
2.The parcel will be put to use consistent with the way the property has
existed for a number of decades.
3.There have been no stated economic considerations for the variance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HASTINGS AS FOLLOWS:
Approval of the variance is subject to the following 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.
Council member __________________ moved a second to this resolution and upon
being put to a vote adopted by _____ present.
X-C-03
Adopted by the Hastings City Council on June 21, 2021, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
ATTEST: __________________________
Mary Fasbender, Mayor
________________________________
Kelly Murtaugh
City Clerk
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 June,
2021, as disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the office.
________________________________
Kelly Murtaugh
City Clerk (SEAL)
This instrument drafted by:
City of Hastings (JJF)
101 4th St. E.
Hastings, MN 55033
X-C-03
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.
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
Planning Commission Memorandum
X-C-03
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
X-C-03
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.
X-C-03
ATTACHMENTS
• Location Map
• Site Photos
• 2003 Site Plan
• Plans
X-C-03
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
X-C-03
Proposed plans and similar to former garage
X-C-03