98-8624r
82
RESOLUTION NO. 8624
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND
APPEALS OF A DECISION MADE BY THE HEARING EXAMINER
6600 JAMES AVENUE
Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
I.
of fact:
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals hereby makes the following findings
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City of Richfield (the "City") regulates, by ordinance, building setback and lot
coverage.
2. The primary source of such regulations is contained in Appendix B of the Richfield
City Code which establishes zoning regulations such as setback and lot coverage
for residential property.
3. On or about June 2, 1998 the City received an application from AI D. Keenan (the
"Applicant"), 6600 James Avenue, requesting variances to residential building
setback and lot coverage regulations in order to construct a garage addition.
4. The Applicant requested a setback variance to allow construction of a 12 foot by
23.6 foot garage addition, for a total area of 283 square feet, 17 feet from the front
property line where 30 feet is required.
5. The front of the property is on James Avenue, an unconstructed street.
6. The front of the house is oriented to 66th Street, a major arterial and County road.
7. The existing house is located approximately 20 feet from the streetside property line
(66th Street), 30 feet from the front property line (James Avenue), five feet from the
interior side property line (Monroe Park) and 12 feet from the rear property line.
8. The Applicant requested a lot coverage variance that would result in a lot coverage
of 2,748 square feet where 2,500 square feet is the maximum allowed.
9. 6600 James Avenue is a lot 60 feet by 135 feet with a lot area of 8,155 square feet.
10. The existing house is approximately 70 feet by 35 feet for a total building envelope
of 2,460 square feet.
11. The one-and-a-half story house has 3,520 square feet with a 20 by 20 foot garage.
12. On July 21, 1998 the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the variance
request.
13. At the hearing, the Applicant stated that the design of the garage would be
consistent with the design of the house.
14. At the hearing, the Applicaot stated that he has a niece living with him who has a
fatal disease that makes it difficult for her to be out in the cold and to maneuver in
small spaces. The Applicant stated that he was requesting the additional garage
space to give her room to park her car inside and to have room to maneuver in and
out of the car.
15. The Applicant submitted a letter to staff, written by Dr. Arnold Schroeter, explaining
that the Applicant's niece suffers from chronic sclerodermatomyositis and mixed
connective tissue disease and that exposure to the cold exacerbates her condition.
16. On or about July 28, 1998 the Hearing Examiner published a written decision
denying the variance requests.
Resolution No. 8624
-2-
17. On or about August 13, 1998 the City received a written request (the "Appeal") to
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (the "Board") to consider an appeal of the
decision of the Hearing Examiner.
18. The Appeal came before the Board for review and action on September 14,1998.
Following a public hearing, the Board voted to grant the appeal and thereby
approve the variance requests.
II. The Board hereby makes the following conclusions:
CONCLUSIONS
1. There is an undue hardship that denies the applicant reasonable use of the
property. The large house currently has a small (20 feet wide) two car garage. It is
reasonable for a house this size to have a larger garage. The Applicant has a
family member with health issues that make it difficult for her to be in the cold to
access a car and make it difficult for her to maneuver in the existing small garage.
2. There are unique circumstances related to the property. The front of the property is
oriented to James Avenue, which is an unconstructed street; therefore, a front yard
setback on James Avenue is unnecessary. The property is located on 66th Street,
a County road with high traffic counts reducing the outside livability of the property
thereby reducing the need for private yard space. The property is located adjacent
to a park which also reduces the need for private yard space.
3. There will be no adverse impacts on the neighborhood. The garage would be
designed to match the design of the existing house.
4. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue
hardship. The proposed garage is 12 feet by 23.6 feet, a minimum size for a single
stall garage.
III. Based upon the foregoing, the Board hereby makes the following decision:
DECISION
The appeal of the decision by the Hearing Examiner to deny front yard setback
and lot coverage variances for 6600 James Avenue is hereby in all respects
APPROVED.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota th"s
September, 1998.
ATTEST:
cjJ~ p~
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk