Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 615-15 - Idso.VarianceRescindReplace.R2014-012VARRESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ivan Idso applied for multiple variances (#R2014-012VAR) in order to construct a 630 square foot addition to a single family dwelling that will not meet the front yard and side yard setback standards of the R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The property is located at 107 11t" Street N.W.; and, WHEREAS, the specific variance requests are as follows- 1. A variance of six feet from the required ten feet minimum setback requirement for the side yard on the east of the lot in order to meet the minimum required sum of the two side yards of 16 feet within the R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District as provided in R.C.O. §62.232-7 2. A variance of 18.5 feet from the required 25 feet front yard minimum setback requirement within the R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District as provided in R.C.O. §62.232; 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: The lot is unique in the sense that the principle structure is currently nonconforming because it has an existing front yard setback of less than twenty-five (25) feet. Other lots in the vicinity have similar nonconforming setbacks to the front yard, with some principle structures encroaching to as little as four (4) feet to the front lot line. However, it is not considered that these conditions apply by and large to the R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District. Moreover, there are no unique circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties within the R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District with regard to side yard setbacks, apart from an evident nonconformity to this setback at the property to the east and a few other properties in the vicinity. The lot and property characteristics are such that the applicant could construct the addition in a manner so as to retain the required side yard setback of ten (10) feet in order to comply with the setback requirements of the Ordinance. Given the above reasons, it is considered that the proposal does not comply with the above criterion; 2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER: There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Though the existing principle structure does not meet the front yard setback in the respective zoning district, the proposed addition will not only increase the existing nonconformity with regards to the front yard setback, it will also encroach into the side yard setback thereby not meeting the minimum requirements for setbacks of a dwelling in the R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District. Given the above reasons, it is considered that the proposal does not comply with this standard; 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 appear to be a reasonable use in the R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District given that the proposal does not change the existing use which is permitted on the site and within the respective zoning district. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 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 neighborhood given that the surrounding uses are all residential. Furthermore, there is evidence of encroachment into front yard and side yard setbacks by other nonconforming dwellings within the vicinity. However, it is considered that the proposed addition is not of a sufficient distance from the neighboring property to the east so as to not detrimentally affect the neighboring property's amenity. Given the above, it is considered that the proposal does not comply with this criterion; 5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance because, though it may affect the amenity of the neighboring property to the east, it is not considered that the general welfare or safety of the public will be compromised through the granting of these variances. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of 2 this standard; 6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal complies with this requirement; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant applied the criteria found at 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: The lot is nonconforming in the sense that the principle structure is currently nonconforming because it has an existing front yard setback of less than twenty-five (25) feet, but this is typical of setbacks on either side of the lot and on this block. Moreover, there are also a few side yard setback nonconformities in the area, including the property to the east which is also owned by the applicant. With an existing six (6) foot side yard setback on the west side of the property and therefore, a required ten (10) foot side yard setback required on the east side, this creates an undue hardship for the owner due to the narrow lot when building a home that relies on a wide south -facing frontage to heat and provide electricity for the primary structure, while maintaining a portion of the existing structure with a roof that is not conducive to solar energy production. So while the fifty (50) foot lot width is not unique, the combination of a superinsulated solar powered home being built on this narrow lot, is unique in this development. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER: There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The existing structure does not meet the front yard setback in the respective zoning district, but is typical for the surrounding homes. The side yard setbacks are inconsistent throughout the neighborhood. The lot widths of fifty (50) feet were created in 1857 when the property was platted and is too narrow when building a home that relies on a wide south -facing frontage to heat and provide electricity for the primary structure, were not created by the landowner. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 3 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 appear to be a reasonable use in the R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District given that the proposal does not change the existing use which is permitted on the site and within the respective zoning district. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 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 neighborhood given that the surrounding uses are all residential. Furthermore, there is evidence of encroachment into front yard and side yard setbacks by other nonconforming dwellings within the vicinity. The owners will attempt to maintain the architectural theme of the neighborhood and there is support from the neighbors. The property to the east, which will be most affected by approval of this variance, is owned by the applicant of this variance. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance because, though it may affect the amenity of the neighboring property to the east, it is not considered that the general welfare or safety of the public will be compromised through the granting of these variances. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal complies with this requirement; and, WHEREAS, this matter came before the Planning and Zoning Commission at its October 15, 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 November 3, 2014, meeting; and, 4 WHEREAS, at its November 3rd public hearing, the Applicant appeared and testified in support of his request for the variances. He stated he is seeking to build a net zero energy home. The amount of south facing frontage/exposure is critical for a solar home. He owns the property to the east which is the property most impacted by the proposed narrow setbacks. He stated the neighbors are in support of his request. He stated that, at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the assistant city attorney noted that undue hardship includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems; and, WHEREAS, at its November 3rd public hearing, a neighbor appeared and testified in support of the requested variances; 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: The lot is nonconforming in the sense that the principle structure is currently nonconforming because it has an existing front yard setback of less than twenty-five (25) feet, but this is typical of setbacks on either side of the lot and on this block. Moreover, there are also a few side yard setback nonconformities in the area, including the property to the east which is also owned by the applicant. With an existing six (6) foot side yard setback on the west side of the property and therefore, a required ten (10) foot side yard setback required on the east side, this creates an undue hardship for the owner due to the narrow lot when building a home that relies on a wide south -facing frontage to heat and provide electricity for the primary structure, while maintaining a portion of the existing structure with a roof that is not conducive to solar energy production. So while the fifty (50) foot lot width is not unique, the combination of a superinsulated solar powered home being built on this narrow lot, is unique in this development. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER: There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The existing structure does not meet the front yard setback in the respective zoning district, but is typical for the surrounding homes. The side yard setbacks are inconsistent throughout the neighborhood. The lot widths of fifty (50) feet were created in 1857 when the property 5 was platted and is too narrow when building a home that relies on a wide south -facing frontage to heat and provide electricity for the primary structure, were not created by the landowner. Undue hardship includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 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 appear to be a reasonable use in the R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District given that the proposal does not change the existing use which is permitted on the site and within the respective zoning district. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 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 neighborhood given that the surrounding uses are all residential. Furthermore, there is evidence of encroachment into front yard and side yard setbacks by other nonconforming dwellings within the vicinity. The owners will attempt to maintain the architectural theme of the neighborhood and there is support from the neighbors. The property to the east, which will be most affected by approval of this variance, is owned by the applicant of this variance. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance because, though it may affect the amenity of the neighboring property to the east, it is not considered that the general welfare or safety of the public will be compromised through the granting of these variances. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of this standard; 6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal complies with this requirement; and, 6 WHEREAS, at its November 3rd 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 Ivan Idso for several variances as identified below (#R2014- 012VAR) that will allow the construction of a 630 square foot addition to a single family dwelling at 107 11t" Street N.W: 1. A variance of six feet from the required ten feet minimum setback requirement for the side yard on the east of the lot in order to meet the minimum required sum of the two side yards of 16 feet within the R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District as provided in R.C.O. §62.232; and 2. A variance of 18.5 feet from the required 25 feet front yard minimum setback requirement within the R-2 (Low Density) Residential Zoning District as provided in R.C.O. §62.232. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution #502-14 is hereby rescinded and replaced with this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS ATTEST: CITY CLERK DAY OF , 2015. PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2015. (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) Zone 15\VarianceRes.1412 MAYOR OF SAID CITY 7