Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 448-14 • 448-14 F6 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Eric J. Eggler applied for multiple variances (#R2014-007VAR) in order to construct a 780 square foot (30 feet wide by 26 feet deep) rear dwelling with a tuck-under three- car garage within the rear yard of an existing dwelling. The property is located at 1147 Second Street N.W.; and, WHEREAS, the specific variance requests are as follows: 1. A variance of nine feet from the required 18 feet wide access requirement for rear dwellings within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District as provided in R.C.O. §62.278(6); 2. A variance of 20 feet from the required 25 feet rear yard minimum setback requirement within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District as provided in R.C.O. §§62.222, 62.278(6), 63.310; and, 3. A variance of two feet from the required 25 feet for the front yard minimum setback within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District as provided in R.C.O. §§62.222, 62.278(6), 63.310; and, WHEREAS, R.C.O. §60.417 provides the criteria by which a variance request is analyzed; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff applied the criteria found in R.C.O. §60.417 to the requested variances and made the following findings of fact: 1. THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS IRREGULARITY NARROWNESS, OR SHALLOWNESS OF THE LOT OR EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHICAL OR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND DO NOT APPLY TO OTHER LANDS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE SAME CLASS OF ZONING DISTRICT: Though the lot is unique in the sense that it abuts unbuildable park land to the north, thereby reducing any adverse amenity impacts from encroachment into the rear yard setback, it is still considered that there are not unique circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District. A building to the rear of an existing principal building may be used for residential purposes if it conforms to all the lot area and yard requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed rear dwelling does not comply with the latter provisions; 2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY • THE LANDOWNER: There are no extraordinary conditions or • circumstances that are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The need for a 3-car garage and rear dwelling was created by the landowner, and the rear dwelling does not meet the setback requirements within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District; 3. THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER NOT PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be a reasonable use in the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District given the encroachment of the rear dwelling into yard setbacks and the insufficient area provided around the principle dwelling and proposed rear dwelling which does not provide applicable yards and setbacks in the event that the area was subdivided; 4. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO OTHER PROPERTY IN THE AREA AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY: The granting of this variance request would not be substantially detrimental to the adjacent property owners given that the land to the north is municipal park land, and the proposed rear dwelling is of a sufficient distance from neighboring properties (not including the principle dwelling) to not detrimentally affect their amenity; 5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance would be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance because rear dwellings within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District must meet the required setbacks as per Section 62.278(6) of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance. The proposed rear dwelling does not meet the setbacks required within the R- 1(Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District; 6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, this matter came before the Planning and Zoning Commission at its September 3, 2014, meeting at which time the Commission recommended the denial of the requested variances based upon the Planning Department's recommended findings of fact; and, WHEREAS, this matter came before the Common Council at its October 6, 2014, meeting; and, • 2 • WHEREAS, at its October 6th public hearing, the Applicant appeared and testified in support of his request for the variances. He stated he was misled by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Department staff, and by the system. He had been encouraged to seek the vacation of the adjacent right-of-way (Vacation R2014-006) as such action would assist in obtaining the needed variances to allow the rear dwelling to be built. He discovered that vacation, and the delay surrounding the recording of the easements noted as conditions of approval attached to the approval of that vacation, were being used to oppose his request for these variances or to require an additional variance. The suggested right-of-way vacation actually complicated his efforts to build the rear dwelling on his property. He has spent more than $2,100 of his own money in pursuing these land use steps and appeals, and has nothing to show for it. He believes he is entitled to the variances and to a refund of the fees paid to date; and, WHEREAS, at its October 6t" public hearing, several neighbors including the representative of the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association appeared and testified in support of the requested variances; and, WHEREAS, at its October 6th public hearing, it was noted that, during the Planning and Zoning Commission's September 3rd meeting, a Commission member observed that there was pending a "new zoning ordinance that would allow for more density in downtown neighborhoods, however ... the new ordinance has not been adopted;" and, WHEREAS, the Council concluded that the Applicant's request for variances were reasonable and compliant with R.C.O. §60.417 based upon the following findings of fact: 1. THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS IRREGULARITY, NARROWNESS, OR SHALLOWNESS OF THE LOT OR EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHICAL OR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND DO NOT APPLY TO OTHER LANDS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE SAME CLASS OF ZONING DISTRICT: There are unique circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property. The lot is unique as it abuts unbuildable park land to the north which acts to reduce any adverse impacts from encroaching into the rear yard setback. Additionally, the Applicant was encouraged to seek the vacation of adjacent right-of-way (Vacation R2014-006) only to find that vacation and its attendant conditions of approval would act to prevent him from obtaining these variances. Furthermore, if a proposed ordinance allowing for more density in downtown neighborhoods were in effect, the Applicant would not need the requested variances in order to building the second dwelling on his property. Finally, the requested rear dwelling is similar to other such dwellings in existence in this area; 2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY • 3 • THE LANDOWNER: There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The Applicant was encouraged to seek the vacation of adjacent right-of-way (Vacation R2014-006) only to find that vacation and its attendant conditions of approval would act to prevent him from obtaining these variances. Furthermore, if a proposed ordinance allowing for more density in downtown neighborhoods were in effect, the Applicant would not need the requested variances in order to building the second dwelling on his property. Finally, the requested rear dwelling is similar to other such dwellings in existence in this area; 3. THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER NOT PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance would appear to be necessary to allow for reasonable use of the applicant's property. Otherwise, the Applicant would be penalized because a proposed ordinance increasing density in downtown neighborhoods has not yet become effective; 4. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO OTHER . PROPERTY IN THE AREA, AND WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY: The granting of this variance request would not be substantially detrimental to the adjacent property owners. No one appeared to testify in opposition to the variance request. The Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association supported the variance request; 5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance would be not be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance because there are pending actions to increase the density in downtown neighborhoods; and, 6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The R-4 (High Density Residential) Zoning District is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, however, there are pending actions to increase the density in downtown neighborhoods; and, WHEREAS, at its October 6th public meeting, the Council concluded that the Applicant had satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §60.417 based upon the above-stated findings of fact and was, therefore, entitled to the variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the City approve the request of Eric Eggler for several variances as identified below (#R2014-007VAR) that will allow the construction of a rear dwelling for property located at 4 1147 Second Street N.W: 1. A variance of nine feet from the required 18 feet wide access requirement for rear dwellings within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District as provided in R.C.O. §62.278(6); 2. A variance of 20 feet from the required 25 feet rear yard minimum setback requirement within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District as provided in R.C.O. §§62.222, 62.278(6), 63.310; and, 3. A variance of two feet from the required 25 feet for the front yard minimum setback within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential Zoning District as provided in R.C.O. §§62.222, 62.278(6), 63.310. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution is subject to the successful recording of Vacation Resolution #R2014-006. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 6th DAY OF OCTOBE , 2014, PRESIDENT Q SAID COMMON COUNCIL q ,,... 7 , ATTEST: mm 2r CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS 7th DAY OF OCTOBER , 2014. MAYOR OF SAID CITY aotµ,srca +rrsn--. s *� A'i t i;tl•.t11 f:•V tit•4•p+ Zone WarianceRes.1407 • 5