Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: April 27, 2021
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-01
VARIANCE to Side and Rear Yard Setbacks for Detached Garage
APPLICANT: Dale Krystosek
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 573 Hiawatha Avenue
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 25, 2021
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Dale Krystosek, the owner of 573 Hiawatha Avenue, is requesting a variance from the required side- yard and rear-yard setback standards in order to replace an existing legal nonconforming garage with a new garage structure.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is 14,234-sq. ft. or 0.33 acres in area, and contains an existing 1,555 sq. ft., 1-1/4 story single-family dwelling, originally built in 1940.
The parcel is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential development.
The property also contains a 20’ deep by 25.5’ wide (518-sq. ft.) detached garage, with an attached 11’ x 20’ (220-sf.) open carport extension. Carports are considered “garage space” – so the total area of this detached garage is 738-sq. ft. This garage is in poor and deteriorating condition. As per the survey/site plan, the existing garage is located 1.88 – 1.94 feet from the southerly or side lot line; and 3.44 – 3.90 feet off the northerly or rear lot line.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garage and carport, and replace it with a new 24’ x 26’
(624-sq. ft.) detached garage in the same location, in order to align with the existing driveway. City Code allows homeowners (without an attached garage) to have up to 750-sf. of detached garage space, and up to 1,000-sf. of garage with approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). Code also requires accessory structures such as garages to be set back a minimum of 10-feet from any side or rear property boundary lines. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct the new garage with the existing setbacks established by the old garage structure.
Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 2
ANALYSIS
Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Land
As noted in the applicant’s narrative and application submittals, the existing garage structure is in a state of disrepair that would make continued maintenance an unrealistic option (see attached pictures).
Title 12-1D-1(D)(4) allows for the normal maintenance of a legal nonconforming structure, which does not intensify the nonconformity. In this case, the applicant is seeking to make a structural improvement, but maintain some existing (reduced) setbacks already established by the old garage. The applicant is also decreasing the overall nonconforming structure by reducing the current garage footprint from 738-sq. ft. to 624-sq. ft., which represents a reduction of 114-sf. of garage space or 18% less covered area.
As noted, the parcel and structures are legal nonconformities from the following R-1 District and accessory structure requirements:
Standard Existing Condition Conforming
Lot Area 15,000-sq. ft. 14,234-sq. ft. NO
Lot Width 100-ft. 110-ft. YES
Front Yard 30 ft. 29.34-ft. YES
Side Yard
10 ft. on each side or ½ of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15
ft.
14.7-ft. (west)
64.4-ft. (east) YES Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot depth,
whichever is greater 61.9-ft. YES
Accessory Structure - Side and Rear Yard (over 144 sq. ft.)
10 ft. 1.88 – 1.94 ft. (west)
3.44 – 3.90-ft. (north) NO Detached Garage Size 750 sq. ft. (permitted)
1,000 sq. ft. (CUP) 738-sq. ft. (existing)
624-sq. ft. (proposed) YES
Variance Process
City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties;
and (ii) impact to the community.
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows:
x Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
x Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
x Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
x Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
x Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings-of-facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings-of-fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined.
As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response:
1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (“practical difficulties” means the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code)
Applicant’s Response: The layout of the original (current) garage, driveway and house on the property make compliance with the setbacks impractical when replacing the garage.. In order to have adequate and safe turn-around area for my vehicles, I need to rebuild the garage in [its] current location (2.0 feet from property lines).
Staff’s Response: County Assessor records indicate the property was developed over 80-years ago, where setbacks at that time may not have been followed very closely - or possibly may not have existed at that time. In any event, the current garage does not meet setbacks, and is therefore considered a legal, non-conforming structure in its present state.
City Code allows single-family residential parcels without an attached garage to have one detached garage up to 750 sq. ft. or up to 1,000 sq. ft. with a conditional use permit; however, any detached garage must maintain a setback of 10-feet from adjacent lot lines. Although this property contains an existing 738-sf. detached garage not meeting required setbacks, the proposal to replace with a slightly larger detached garage of 624-sq. ft. appears to be a reasonable request in this case, even with the added allowance to rebuild in the same location as the old garage with the same and reduced setbacks.
The subject parcel is zoned and guided LR- Low Density Residential in the 2030/2040 Comprehensive Plans and a new detached garage perpetuates residential use of the property. According to the applicants, the existing garage is in poor and unredeemable condition and is probably undersized for today’s vehicle sizes and storage utilization. The applicant has also indicated he intends to re-use most of the existing garage foundation and plans to keep the driveway in its current location. In light of this, staff feels a new detached garage with reduced setbacks in this case is a reasonable request and the property will remain to be used in a reasonable manner as prescribed by Code.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: Original garage and driveway were located close to the property line. Two large trees would be damaged or killed if garage were moved to comply with 10-ft. setbacks. Not granting the variance would necessitate backing vehicles out of driveway 140’, creating a safety hazard.
This property is one of many located in the “North End” neighborhood, which contain a number of non-conforming lots and properties throughout this area. The subject property is part of the Cherokee Park Heights plat of 1924, in which most or many of the lots were platted as 50-ft. wide by 130’ deep lots. This property actually consists of two original 50’ wide lots, plus 10-ft. from another, or 110 feet in width. Although unable to confirm, one can assume this home originally started off as a single dwelling with a detached garage on one or a combination of the lots, and these structures may have been built early on with without any setback standards.
Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 4
The reduced setbacks or non-conforming issues are indicative of a shared trait among many other properties in this “North End” neighborhood and some adjacent neighboring properties. Even though staff has acknowledged that other non-conforming lots or properties where variances may have been granted do not add precedent value to a new variance request (i.e. variances should stand on their own merits and be determined individually), it is acceptable for the city to allow some flexibility and favorable weight to such physical circumstances with this lot.
As for the rear yard setback, this area abuts to an unimproved 20-foot wide alley platted under the Cherokee Park plat. It is unlikely the city will ever install an alley in this block, so it is possible this alley could one day be vacated and conveyed to neighboring properties, which would negate the need for a rear-yard setback variance if needed.
Staff finds there may be some or enough unique circumstances related to this property, particularly with the reduced setbacks on the garage “not created by the owner...” that may lend support in the granting of a variance in this case; and also gives some added weight to creating or supporting the practical difficulties argument for the property owner.
3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response: Granting the variance would improve the essential character of the neighborhood by replacing an old, crumbling garage with a new garage in the same location. All neighbors within all directions of the property have consented to the variance.
The surrounding neighborhood is all but residential in character, and contains a mix of attached and detached garages with the assorted dwellings. This new garage represents a considerable investment by the Applicant to remove and replace the older, functionally obsolete and deteriorating garage with a newer and up-to-date garage for the owner. Staff believes the Applicant has demonstrated through their architectural design plans that the new garage will be made to match the existing home, will not look out of place, or detract from the overall design and feel of the existing dwelling, the neighboring properties or overall neighborhood.
Many other properties in the vicinity feature garages both attached and detached, that may not meet some required setback standards. As noted previously, based on aerial mapping review and interpretation of this neighborhood area, it appears a number of homes and accessory garage structures (including the subject property) do not meet some of the required setbacks under the R-1 District standards. Nevertheless, staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered by granting this variance.
4. Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations alone should not be the only reason for denying - or even approving a variance. In this particular case, the property owner is simply requesting to remove and replace a garage that better suits his needs. In order to reuse the old foundation of the garage, the applicant is requesting to place the new garage on the same setbacks established by the old garage; which helps minimize and reduces the loss of valuable trees, back yard space and other improvements. The new garage should not impact any neighboring properties.
Although one can conclude this new attached garage will provide some economic value to the owner by increasing the property value of the home and/or marketability (future sale), the Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable explanations for
requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting this variance.
b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family Residence district, as this proposed garage is consistent and allowed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning. The city is not allowed to permit a variance on any use not allowed in the district where the property is located (i.e. “use variance”); and this variance is not requesting such use. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the community, and this district is intended to maintain the character of even older neighborhoods, like the North End in the community.
The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the same is called for proposed 2040 Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below:
x LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community.
x LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building.
x LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building.
x LUP # 2.2.6: Provide a mechanism to allow for the maintenance and reinvestment in select non-conforming properties.
The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and would provide a substantial investment into a property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner.
The proposed garage poses no threat or any effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new garage and request for variance can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows:
A.
Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”B.
The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setbacks by the following supporting statements:i.) the proposed 624-sq. ft. detached garage to the existing property is consistent with other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and enjoyment of
Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 6
the home and property does not change even with the variance to allow the reduced setbacks on the structure, and therefore the requested variance is considered a reasonable request.
ii.) the subject property was originally platted in 1924 and developed in 1940, creating some unique circumstances not created by the owner today, particularly with the placement of the existing garage, which in turn generated some unique circumstances, difficulties or impediments to the Applicant for replacing and adding a reasonable garage structure to the property in the rear yard area, except by means of a variance.
iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area should not be affected by the approval of this variance; and
iv.) This new garage with variances is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans, goals and policy statements contained in the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans of the community.
C.
The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5.E.1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general.D.
Approval of the Variance is for 573 Hiawatha Avenue only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code.E.
The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2021- 01, dated and presented April 27, 2021 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2021-____. (final number to be assigned later)F.
The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:1) The new detached garage must match the architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling on the subject property.
2) The proposed garage addition and all other proposed improvements shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards.
3) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of the new garage addition.
4) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities.
5) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one-year from said approval date.
2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setbacks. The proposed garage is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; there appears to be enough space to fit the garage on the property and meet required setbacks; and therefore this variance is not considered a reasonable request on the property; and furthermore the applicant failed to adequately justify the need for granting this variance.
C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood).
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of the variance with findings-of-facts to support the granting of said variance to Dale Krystosek of 573 Hiawatha Avenue, with the conditions noted therein.
Attachments 1. Site Pics
2. Aerial/Site Location Map
3. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative) 4. Petition List of Neighbor’s Support of Variance
5. Survey/Site Plan 6. Garage Plans
Planning Report-Case #2021-01 Page 8 SITE / STRUCTURE PICTURES – 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE
LOOKING TOWARDS HOME / DRIVEWAY LOOKING BACK TOWARDS GARAGE
FRONT OF GARAGE / CARPORT SIDE VIEW – GARAGE/CARPORT
SIDE / REAR VIEW OF GARAGE REAR VIEW OF GARAGE
LOOKING NORTHWARD - ALLEY LOOKING SOUTHWARD - ALLEY
REAR YARD – LARGE EVERGREEN /BRICK OVEN
66 66 66
66 66
66
66 66
66
66
66
6
6
6 6 6
6
6
6
6
6 6 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
560
200
199
668
181
235
172
193
168
162
146
144
143
91 135 90
133 130
84
54
124 123
80 113
79
95
110
74 107
140
71
105 70
104
101
81
100
66
62
61
60 57
55
53 52 51
256
50
176 254 48
45
41 40
238
44
38
36
37 56
33 34
32
30
29
75 27
218
25
35
20
19 9
17
8
14 11
6
10
5 130
25
91 130
29
130
10
168
50 130
40
50 130
10
55
10
10
50
84
70
50 130
130
40
25
50 130
9 123
130
60
256
50 130
29
110
74
50
70
55
130 30
606
566
572
605 597
613
573 598 567
563
591 574
564
583
588
569
557 565
586 580
576
605
559 561
555 600
562
572 568 564 560 556 569
552
623 565
551
HIAW ATHA AVE
MIRIAM ST GARDE
N LN
SIBL EY MEM
ORIAL HWY
350 '
348.8'
239' 326.8'
253.4'
200.85'
213'
103' 125.8'
249.6' 117.6'
573 HIAWATHA AVENUE (2021-01 Dale Krystosek)
City of
Mendota Heights
0 100
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
4/7/2021
(;,67,1* New Garage:24'x26' (624-sq.ft.)
Letter of Intent
Dale Krystosek Property, 573 Hiawatha Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Project Description
The owner/ applicant is proposing to tear down existing old garage (approximately 70 years old) and rebuild a new garage within same footprint (approximately 2 feet from property lines).
The variance request is based on the following considerations:
1. Moving Garage to meet the setback requirement would significantly reduce vehicle turn-around area.
Moving the garage to comply with the 10-foot setback requirement would significantly reduce the vehicle turnaround area. Currently there is barely enough room between garage and house to turnaround after backing vehicle out of garage.
Moving garage 8 to 10 feet back from back lot line and back from southwest property line would make vehicle turnaround nearly impossible.
Meeting the setback requirement would result in the need to back my vehicle out of driveway every time I use it which is approximately 140 feet - creating a safety hazard.
New garage in current location would result in a reduced project footprint area. The new garage is slightly larger than the old garage, but the carport would be removed and not re-built.
I believe that rebuilding my garage is a reasonable use of my property.
Moving garage to meet setback would significantly reduce turnaround area. Currently there is barely enough room between garage
and house to turnaround.
x Meeting setback requirement would much reduce the necessary vehicle turnaround area and would result in the need to back my vehicles out of the driveway.
x The long driveway is approximately 140 feet in length, (nearly half the length of a football field).
x Backing a vehicle along the long narrow driveway to Hiawatha Avenue on a daily basis seems unreasonable and would create a safety hazard during the backout on the driveway and also when backing onto the avenue.
x Compliance with setback requirements would shift the garage (and garage door) out of alignment with the driveaway, creating an additional functional issue and potential safety concern (see photo below).
Driveway looking from current garage toward Hiawatha Avenue. The driveway is narrow
(approximately 10 feet wide with narrow clearance on both sides)
Driveway looking from Hiawatha Avenue toward garage (approximately 140 feet – nearly half the length of a football field). Note that the garage door is
currently centered in line with center line of the driveway.
2. Potential Large Tree Damages/Safety Hazard
x There are several very large trees near the existing garage including a very large white pine and a large white spruce.
x Moving the garage over 8-10 feet would likely damage tree root systems and/or kill 100-year-old giant white pine and white spruce.
x There is a playground style swing set near the garage with a glider swing designed for the handicapped child of the previous owner.
x Moving the garage would bring the garage wall much closer to the swing and would create a potential safety hazard for children using the glider swing set .
Moving garage over 8-10 feet would likely damage or kill 100-
year-old giant white pine and white spruce.
Moving garage would create potential safety hazard for
handicap glider swing set
x Moving garage to comply with setback would create potential safety hazard for handicap glider swing set (photo on left).
x Garage wall would be much closer to swing, so when fully swinging, a potential dangerous safety
situation could occur.
Compliance with the setback requirement would negatively impact the following features on my property:
x Potentially damage root systems or kill the large white pine (foreground) and white spruce (background) x Create a potential safety hazard for swing set (see photo below)
x Much reduced usable space around the restored brick outdoor fireplace (middle).
3. Exisiting garage is in extremely poor condition.
The current owner is only the second owner of the home which was built in 1941 by the previous owner.
The exisiting garage was built in two phases, the first in the 1940s and the second phase built in about
1958. At this time there are holes in the walls allowing daylight through along with decayed studs and
rafters. There are raccoons living in the garage attic. The garage needs to be demolished and rebuilt. The
owner is willing to invest the capital to rebuild if allowed to re-build within the current footprint.
Proposed New Garage
Requesting variance for 2 foot setback from property
lines for new garage with reconstruction in same location as the old garage.
All immediate neighbors have signed consent form.
Summary – Over the past 3-4 years, the owner and applicant has made significant investments and put in hard work to upgrade the property and be a good citizen of the neighborhood and city of Mendota Heights.
x Constructing the new garage in current location would result in a reduced overall project footprint area. The new garage is slightly larger than the old garage, but the carport would be removed and not re-built, thus reducing the total project footprint.
x Moving garage 8 to 10 feet back from back lot line and back from southwest property line would make vehicle turnaround nearly impossible when exiting the garage.
x If the new garage was constructed to meet the setback requirement, I would need to back my vehicle out of my narrow driveway approximately 140 feet to Hiawatha Avenue creating a safety hazard.
x All neighbors directly adjacent to my property are in support of the variance. The six closest neighbors to the project have signed the City of Mendota Heights Neighbor Signature of Consent for Variance
Request Form (attached).x I believe that rebuilding my garage in the current location is a reasonable use of my property.
Over $3,000 have been invested in purchasing and planting
white cedar
