Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutX-C-03 Resolution Variance 2021-38 - Sideyard Setback - Matthew Heiman (502 6th St E) City Council Memorandum To: Mayor Fasbender & City Councilmembers From: Justin Fortney, City Planner Date: November 15, 2021 Item: Variance #2021-38 – Side Yard Setback – 502 6th Street East – Matt Heiman Council Action Requested: Review and take action on the attached resolution denying the following variance request: 1. A variance to the ten-foot minimum street side yard setback in the R-2 Zoning District for an accessory structure as stipulated in Hastings City Code 155.05, Subd. D(11) A vote of 75% (6 of 7) of the entire City Council is required to effect any variation in the application of the zoning code. Background Information: Detached accessory buildings may be up to 5-feet from rear and interior side property lines and 10-feet from property lines along a side street. The additional setback along side streets is to reduce the visibility of accessory structures and provide a uniform streetscape. Staff and the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed improvement can be accomplished within the required setback requirements, albeit less convenient for the applicant. Please see the attached November 8, 2021 Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Financial Impact: N/A Advisory Commission Discussion: The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the request at the November 8, 2021 meeting. The Planning Commissioners expressed concern over approving a variance for connivance rather than necessity. They also mentioned that X-C-03 other property owners that have been (or will be) in similar situations and met the requirements when faced with similar inconveniences. Only the applicant spoke to the proposal. Council Committee Discussion: N\A Attachments: • Resolution for denial • Planning Commission memo – November 8, 2021 • 7-page packet provided to the Planning Commission at the November 8, 2021 meeting X-C-03 HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ______________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS SITTING AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS DENYING THE REQUEST OF MATTHEW HEIMAN TO VARY FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF HASTINGS CITY CODE 155.05(D)(11) AT 502 6TH STREET EAST Council member ___________________________ introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, Matt Heiman, property owner, has petitioned for a five foot variance from the ten foot minimum R-2 Side Yard setback requirement of Hastings City Code 155.05(D)(11) to allow construction of an accessory structure on property generally located at 502 6th Street East, legally described as Lot 4, Block 134, Including portions of vac Bailly St and alley, Town of Hastings BLKS 100 Thru 199, Dakota County, Minnesota (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, variances to the Hastings City Code may be considered by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals upon determination of supporting evidence as stipulated in Hastings City Code 30.02(F); and WHEREAS, The City Council acts as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals in accordance with Hastings City Code 30.02(A), and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Hastings serving in advisory to the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals reviewed the petition as required by state law, city charter and city ordinance; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the petition consistent with findings of fact and conclusions included in this resolution; and WHEREAS, The City Council sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals has reviewed the petition and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS AS FOLLOWS: X-C-03 That the City Council hereby denies the variance request as presented based on the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1) The physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the Subject Property are not distinctive and do not differ greatly from other properties within the vicinity or zoning district. The denial of the variance may result in inconvenience to the property owner but would not rise to the level of a practical difficulty. 2) The conditions upon which the variance request is based are not unique to the Subject Property and are applicable, generally, to many other properties within the same zoning classification and those in the surrounding neighborhood. 3) The purpose of the variance request does not appear to be exclusively based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the Subject Property. 4) The granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare and would be injurious to other land and improvements in the vicinity because the five-foot extension of the garage in to the required ten-foot setback could negatively impact future transportation options and esthetics if the adjacent right- of-way were reconfigured in the future. 5) The proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to property. However, there would be a decrease to the separation of trains and structures with this proposed variance. This could elevate the potential for property damage and fire hazard. 6) The request is not in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance. The purpose of the side yard setback is 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 street, sidewalks, and rail roads. The propose of the variance reduction from ten-feet to five-feet constitutes a reduction of half the required setback. 7) The proposed variance is neither consistent nor inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. 8) The proposal to construct a detached garage is certainly a reasonable improvement and the setback doesn’t change the use of the property. 9) The difficulties in complying with the minimum setback as noted in the variance application were created solely by the Applicant or previous owners, such as the location of the driveway and transferring rights, title, and interest in the southwest corner to the railroad. 10) Granting the variance would alter the essential character of the locality by deviating from the standard requirement that no structures may be placed within ten feet of the property line. X-C-03 11) The variance is not needed to provide adequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 12) Granting the variance in absence of a unique condition or hardship could confer similar rights on other properties. 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 November 15, 2021, by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: ATTEST: ______________________________ Mary Fasbender, Mayor _____________________________________ Kelly Murtaugh (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 15th day of November1, 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 Street East Hastings, Minnesota 55033 X-C-03 To: Planning Commissioners From: Justin Fortney, City Planner Date: November 8, 2021 (updated) Item: Variance #2021-38 – Shoreland lot size and width – 502 6th Street East – Matt Heiman Planning Commission Action Requested Review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the following request: 1) A variance to the ten-foot minimum street side yard setback in the R-2 Zoning District for an accessory structure as stipulated in Hastings City Code 155.05, Subd. D(11) Background Information Detached accessory buildings may be up to 5-feet from rear and interior side property lines and 10-feet from property lines along a side street. The additional setback along side streets is to reduce the visibility of accessory structures and provide a uniform streetscape. The side of the subject property is adjacent to the Bailly Street right-of-way, which includes a narrow one-way road, paved path, and railroad track, which is under 5-feet from the property. Due to these unique attributes of the right-of-way, the actual property line is currently further from the actual street than normal. However, the future could see any number of changes to the current transportation configurations. When the railroad was installed in the 1870’s, there was about 33-feet of right-of-way between the railroad and the current property. That right-of-way buffer was later vacated and presumably acquired by the property owner and railroad as they are described today. Planning Commission Memorandum X-C-03 Subject Proposal The applicant proposes to build a new detached garage on the west side of the property at the end of the current driveway. Placing the garage near the west property line would allow the garage door to align fairly well with the existing driveway. The proposed garage setback would be 5-feet from the property line. This would place the garage just over 8-feet from the east rail of the track. Public Notification Notification of the variance request was sent to property owners within 350-feet of the property, including Canadian Pacific Railway. Staff has not received any comments. VARIANCE REVIEW 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; There are no existing physical conditions precluding the proposal from being constructed to the strict letter of the regulations. Locating the proposed garage to meet the regulations could easily be accomplished, but may result in a mere inconvenience of a garage and driveway at differing degrees, or realignment of the existing driveway. Both of these inconveniences are routinely bore by other homeowners. X-C-03 (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 upon which the petition for a variance is based is commonly encountered by owners of similar properties. It is a fairly common for property owners to replace an existing garage built with a nonconforming setback. The new garages in those situations must meet the current setback regulations, which often require realignment of the driveway or approach angle. (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 would likely not affect the property value because the improvement could be made regardless. (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 construction of a garage very close to the street side property line and an active, but currently low volume railroad track. This may not cause any detriment to the public or area improvements presently. However, the future transportation requirements in the adjacent right-of-way could change in the future, which could lead to detrimental impacts. (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; There certainly would be a decrease to the separation of trains and structures with this proposed variance. This could elevate the potential for property damage and fire hazard. (6) The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of ordinance; The purpose and intent of the ordinance is to preserve the streetscape, setback, and aesthetics of structures along the right-of-way. While the variance would not negatively affect it at present, any future right-of-way layouts could be adversely impacted. (7) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The property is guided for low density residential development, which would not be altered by the proposal. (8) The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner; The construction of a detached garage is certainly a reasonable improvement and the setback doesn’t change the use of the property. X-C-03 (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; The construction of the garage is a reasonable use of the property. (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; - All of the practical difficulties were cause by previous homeowners or plans of the current applicant. The existing driveway location was placed in close proximity to the property line and the transfer of the southwest corner of the property to the railroad were done by previous owners. The current owner intends to demolish and rebuild an attached garage onto the house thereby having an even greater opportunity to design the improvements in such a way that would be even more accommodating to the proposed detached garage. Realignment of the drive way and some alternative garage placements could impact existing trees. 1. A practical difficulty is not present if the proposal could be reasonably accomplished under the current Ordinance requirements. The applicant could accomplish the proposal under the current ordinance requirements. The purpose of the request is to best align the garage with the driveway and not waste space with the required setback. The applicant provided an illustration showing that the garage could be located on the property within the required setback, although it is not the applicant’s ideal layout. (c) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Initially, the essential character of the locality would probably not be impacted because the actual street is placed far to the opposite side of the ROW. However, any major changes to the existing improvements in the right-of-way could highlight this proposed improvement as out of character with the locality. (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 RECOMMENDATION Denial of the variance is recommended based on the above findings of fact in the Variance Review. Granting a variance based on the present conditions and lack of practical difficulties could easily confer similar justification to other properties. Furthermore, with little inconvenience, the proposed improvement could be located in the general location with full compliance of city codes. ATTACHMENTS • Location Map and Site Photo • Plans and diagrams provided by the applicant X-C-03