HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 480-17 - JonRyan.AppealDecisionofZoningBoardofAppealstoDenyR2017-006VAR
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Jon Ryan (“Applicant”) applied for a variance (#R2017-006VAR) to vary the
side and rear setback standards of the R-1 Zoning District to allow for an attached garage and
two-story addition. The proposed setbacks for the addition were six feet, six inches from the side
property line and five feet, 2 5/16” from the rear property line; and,
WHEREAS, the legal description for Applicant’s property is Lot 7, Block 4, BAIHLY’S
FIRST SUBDIVISION, Olmsted County, Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, the specific variance requested is a variance to the eight feet, six inch side
property line requirement and the 17 feet, six inch rear property line setback requirement found at
R.C.O. §63.112, subd. 5 225; 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 recommended 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 would not appear to be unique
circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant’s property that do
not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of
zoning district. Any large building in the CDC-FR zoning district that could
accommodate multiple tenants would be subject to the same cumulative
signage standards;
2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE
TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY
THE LANDOWNER: The extraordinary conditions or circumstances are
not due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner. The existing wall signage on the building does count towards
the maximum allowed of 350 square feet, however even if there was no
existing wall signage on the building, the applicant’s request would
exceed the allowed amount by approximately 193 square feet;
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 does
not appear to be necessary to overcome practical difficulties in complying
with the zoning ordinance to allow for the property to be used in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. The existing wall
signage for the building does not appear to meet the maximum allowed
wall signage of 350 square feet. The applicant can propose a smaller
amount of wall signage to remain within the 350 square feet requirement;
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
materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other
properties in the area, and will not alter the essential character of the
locality. The essential character of the Central Business District - Fringe
Area zoning district allows for a high density of commercial uses with
most sign standards types of “C” or “D” which allows for more signage
than areas outside the Central Business District;
5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance is not in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance. The purpose and intent of Section 63.225 of the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance is to limit the amount of signage by sign type
depending on the use of the building. Section 63.225 is clear in that
graphics signs are permitted as a portion of each wall. Section 63.224
Subd. 1 (B) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance states that the total area
of all signs of a given sign type shall not exceed the maximum area for
that sign type listed in the table in Section 63.225. The permitted wall
signage for the building is cumulative for the building, not for each tenant
or use;
6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The terms of the variance are generally
consistent with the City’s current Comprehensive Plan, which does not
address allowed wall signage; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Zoning Board of Appeals at its September 6, 2017,
meeting at which time the Board denied the requested variance based upon the Planning
Department’s recommended findings of fact; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision to the Common
Council; and,
WHEREAS, following his appeal of the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision, the Applicant
submitted a revised site plan and elevation drawings. The Applicant is now proposing a smaller
2
addition with proposed setbacks of six feet, six inches from the side property line and 15 feet, 10
1/8 inches from the rear property line. The revised proposed setbacks still do not meet the
setbacks that the Zoning Ordinance requires in the R-1 Zoning District, which would be eight feet,
six inches from the side property line and 17 feet, six inches from the rear property line as provided
in section 63.112, subd. 5; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Common Council at its October 2, 2017, meeting
as a public hearing; and,
nd
WHEREAS, the record before the Common Council at its October 2 public hearing
includes the information found within the Council meeting agenda packet, the presentations made
during the public hearing, the City’s ordinances, and the Applicant’s attachment, and the City’s
Comprehensive Plan including the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area. All of
these documents are on file with the City Clerk and are incorporated herein by reference; and,
nd
WHEREAS, at the October 2 public hearing the Applicant submitted his proposed findings
of fact as follows:
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 is not an extraordinary circumstance or
condition that applies to our property versus all the others in our
neighborhood. Our property is similar in size to adjacent lots. We do see
this project fitting in with many of the other homes in the neighborhood as
legal, but non-conforming. The current setback requirements are very hard
to maintain in older neighborhoods close to downtown. The current setback
requirements make it hard for almost anyone that wants to add-on to their
home in the older part of town with close proximity to downtown. With the
lack of available housing inventory for sale, and how far behind builders are,
people like ourselves will turn to adding on to our homes so we don’t have to
build out on the edge of town. When faced with overpaying for new
construction or remodeling and improving, this makes the most sense for our
family;
2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE
TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY
THE LANDOWNER: The extraordinary conditions or circumstances are due
to circumstances unique to the property and were not created by the current
landowner. The existing home and setbacks pre-date the zoning ordinance
requirements;
3. THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO OVERCOME PRACTICAL
3
DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO
THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER NOT
PERMITTED BY THE ORDINANCE: More than half of the existing homes
from the 1950’s and 1960’s on this street (11 ¼ St) have two-stall attached
garages. If you go one block to the south on 11 ½ Street, most of those
homes are smaller and have just one-car attached garages. We live in a
very unique neighborhood with a diverse style of homes. We disagree about
the “reasonable use” statement from the staff. With our winters and with our
current setup with the small one-car garage, we are forced to park one car on
the street which causes issues with plowing snow. The more cars we can
have off the street I think most agree is beneficial for everyone;
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: We disagree with the staff’s statement. The addition can
only help add more character to the locality. Improving the curb appeal to a
property and adding character that honestly isn’t currently there can only help
the locality. As stated before, more than half of the homes on this exact
street have two-car garages already and more than half are multi-level
homes. Just two houses down is an existing two-story addition that was done
about ten years ago. Please see the letter from the neighbor that we are
building closer to in response to the “impacts” of this addition to adjacent
properties. There is enough room for passage between structures, drainage,
emergency access, etc.;
5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: We have removed the proposed addition to
the rear in agreement with the lack of setback on that rear side. However,
the addition to the west leaves enough room for landscaping, passage, etc.
The home would only potentially cast any shadow onto the base of the
neighbor’s garage to the west. For drainage, we will have all rain routed by
gutters to the street and the grading/landscaping will be done to protect our
investment in our home and protect the neighbor’s as well;
6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The current Comprehensive Plan does not
address minimum setback requirements in the R-1 zoning district; and,
nd
WHEREAS, at its October 2 public hearing, the Council concluded that the Planning
Department staff should be given time to prepare revised recommended findings of fact in
response to the Applicant’s revised site plan and elevation drawings. To that end, the Council
tabled this matter until October 16, 2017, and directed the Planning Department staff to submit its
th
revised recommended findings of fact to the Council at the October 16 meeting; and,
4
WHEREAS, this matter came back before the Council at its October 16, 2017, meeting at
which time the Council considered the following revised recommended findings of fact prepared by
the Planning Department staff:
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: Although the proposed site modifications do not
appear to meet technical consideration identified in Criterion A, planning
staff offers the following information for consideration by Council:
The proposed side yard expansion meets the minimum side yard
requirement of 6’0” The proposed site plan does not meet the sum
of side yard requirement of 16’-0”, the sum of side yard
requirement is deficient by 2’-0”.
The adjacent property to the west has a detached garage which
meets the side yard setback of 18”.
The applicant proposes an addition of non-living space at the
ground level (garage) which is adjacent to non-living space
(garage) to the west.
There appears to be no harm to the adjacent property owners by
allowing reinvestment in older existing residential home
Most of the existing homes in this neighborhood were constructed
prior to the current setback requirements in the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance, and as such a number of the homes do not meet the
setback requirements and are considered legal, non-conforming;
2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE
TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY
THE LANDOWNER: The extraordinary conditions or circumstances are
due to circumstances unique to the property and were not created by the
current landowner. The existing home and setbacks pre-date the Zoning
Ordinance requirements;
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
5
does appear to be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the
applicant’s property and compliance with the zoning ordinance. The
applicant has stated the need for an additional garage stall to prevent
parking on the street in the winter when streets are plowed of snow;
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 does not appear to
be materially detrimental to the public welfare and will alter the essential
character of the locality. Several adjacent property owners, including the
property owner to the west have stated their support for the variance at
public hearings on September 6, 2017 and October 2, 2017;
5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: The variance is in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the ordinance. The purpose and intent of
setback requirements is to allow room for lawns, landscaping, light into
the home, and as filtration areas for storm water run-off. The adjacent
property owner to the west signed their support of the variance and stated
that there would be enough room between their garage and the
applicant’s proposed addition for access for emergency situations, repairs
to either of the structures, and proper drainage;
6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The current Comprehensive Plan does not
address minimum setback requirements in the R-1 zoning district; and,
th
WHEREAS, at its October 16 meeting, the Council concluded that the Applicant had
satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §60.417 based upon the Planning Department staff’s revised
recommended 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 Applicant has satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §60.417 and is entitled to the requested
variance from the provisions of R.C.O. §63.112, subd. 5 so as to allow a setback of six feet, six
inches from the side property line and 15 feet, 10 1/8 inches from the rear property line.
6
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS __________ DAY OF _______________, 2017.
___________________________________
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: __________________________
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________________, 2017.
__________________________________
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone15\\VarianceRes.1701
7