Loading...
06-29-83 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 244 Agenda June 29, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Variance Request at 7333 Colfax Avenue Mr. Myron Gunderson has applied for a variance to reduce the minimum lot area required in an R zoning district .from 6,750 to 6,500 square feet, and to reduce the required interior sideyard setback requirement from five feet to three feet. Mr. Gunderson has recently purchased this vacant platted lot of record and now wishes to construct a single family dwelling.on it. The existing lot does not meet the required minimum lot area standard of 6,750 square feet and the proposed dwelling which he wishes to construct on the site would not meet the interior sideyard set- back requirement of five feet, therefore, the variances are,nec- essary. Zoning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.30, subdivision 4 requires a minimum lot area of 6,750 square feet, Section 3.30, subdivision 5 requires a minimum interior sideyard setback of five feet, and Section 3.40, subdivision 6 lists the three conditions which must be met before a variance can be granted. Staff Review The staff reviewed the variance request against the three con- ditions which must be present before a variance can be granted and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. it is the opinion of the staff that there are special circum- stances relating to the minimum lot area variance which Mr. Gunderson has requested. As indicated, the subject lot is a platted lot.of record which is similar in lot area to the other lots in the neighborhood. The other property owners in the area have been allowed to develop their lots with single family residences. Prior to the passage of the revised residential zoning ordinance, substandard platted lots of Council Letter No. 244 -2- June 29, 1983 record could be developed without a variance being re- quited. To deny this variance would create a hardship for Mr. Gunderson. _ However,. regarding the requested sideyard variance, it is the staff's opinion that there are no special circumstances present. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. It is the opinion of the staff that denial of the lot area variance would preclude reasonable use of the property. If this variance is denied, no development on the lot would be possible because a single family dwelling could not be con- structed on the lot. The only use at that point would be for open space which, in the opinion of the staff, would not be a reasonable use of the property. It is also the staff's opinion that if the applicant is allowed to develop a single family home on the lot, denial of the sideyard variance would not preclude reasonable use of the property. There are alternatives available where setback requirements could be met. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially • and adversely affect the health or safety of persons re- siding or working in the neighborhood and will.not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injuriou to improvements in the neiqhborhood. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed construction of a single family dwelling on the lot would not be detrimental to the public.welfare. The lot size is similar to other lots in the area and, therefore, the proposed development would be in character with other residential properties in the neighborhood. The proposed reduction of the interior side- yard would not be detrimental in that the majority of the construction would have the required five foot setback and only a small six foot exterior fireplace chase projection would have a three foot setback. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the minimum lot area variance be granted because the three conditions for granting a variance have been met. It is further recommended that the sideyard variance be denied because the three conditions for granting variances have not been met. Planning Commission Recommendation At their June 28, 1983 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended that the variance to the minimum lot area Council Letter No. 244 -3- June 29, 1983 be granted. The motion to approve the interior sideyard variance failed on a 4-4 vote, and is being forwarded to the city council with no recommendation. It was the feeling of the commissioners who voted against the motion that the three conditions for granting a variance had not been met and that there were alternative fireplace loca- tions or designs available which would not require a variance and which would not cause the applicant a hardship. Respectfully submitted, A I Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager TAM/ ej a • I? U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 243 Agenda June 29, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council'_ City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Variance Request - 7323 Clinton Avenue Mr. Myron Gunderson has requested a variance to allow him to construct a house on a platted lot of record which does not meet the city's current minimum lot area standard of 6,750 square feet. The existing garage on the site would remain. The proposed dwelling would meet all city setback requirements. Zoning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.30, subdivision 4 requires the minimum lot area of • 6,750 square feet, and Section 3.40, subdivision 6 lists three con- ditions which must be met before a variance can be granted. Staff Review The staff has reviewed the variance requests against the three conditions which must be present for a variance to be granted and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. It is the opinion of the staff that there are special circumstances affecting this particular lot. The subject lot is a platted lot of record. Prior to the passage of the revised residential zoning ordinance, the subject lot could have been developed with a single family residence without a variance being required. The lot area requirements were found in the city's subdivision or- dinance which also stated that lots of record could be developed even though they did not meet the lot area requirements. The revised ordinance changed the lot area standards and put them in the zoning ordinance rather than the subdivision ordinance and eliminated the lot of record exemption. The subject lot is similar in size to other lots in that subdivision of the neighborhood and other property owners have been allowed to 'develop single family dwellings in the area. To deny this 0 variance would create a hardship for Mr. Gunderson. Council Letter No. 243 -2- June 29, 1983 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. In the staff's.opinion, denial of this variance would pre- clude reasonable use of the property. If the variance is denied, there would be no use of the property allowed other than for open space which in the opinion of the staff is not reasonable use of the property. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed dwelling on the site would meet all city setback requirements and the lot is similar in size to other lots developed as single family dwellings in the surrounding area. 0 Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the variance be granted in that all three conditions.for granting a variance have been met. Planning Commission Recommendation At their meeting of June 28, 1983, the planning commission unanimously recommended that this variance be approved. Respectfully submitte , ?a4 A. 1'14,L,7CX--k I Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager TAM/ e j a 0 No. Ml-R, SK t144tJ+dOW ToP?i., !34,53 0 to ? n I'b4'.b8 13*114' i ?' ` 134.8 " J V IRRY S. JOHNSON COMPANIES, INC. 401 WEST 79TH STREET BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55420 PHONE 16121 664.5341 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MYlzoN ' jUUGvF-s0" cou5?; ca, I0?+ 134 009 ?? 'Sp 9 30.0 -- 1 ,-r S,a ? 135.1 " 43.0 / " 135'r I SET '-'? DoT I8 lid 4 o QKaPos?D t3s,4 135,8 46/ N 1t Lo y?? . 1 134.q , 25o x 352 22.2' ? 3o.o 4,'26,- 1P , x 156,gq To?tic? \ ? '? ? \`_ 13e.?X 24.0 \ xl251-4, --- 1*2 1•38 --- 1 ? i ? Fouuo Tof, of Gu¢?, Tc, ;6iasr1Nq Sfbj *t*y IS4.5 it Woo f+ob ¦ 120N moN0M1;NT 5>c7 19-014 Ndow 0?40HT FavN4D P?ZOPa"&D SPOT VWV,, C 1-S6'4>) X e-4uXo of G7uG. x.41-1-? 135,5b 1.45 W0T-rs b=-No H- Mz-k ; S. v - Gdiz } vr- c?G I•DaY?? 5'F;FP X244 GLW jvN ?Y1s,SD 5-WVAIT10N IS4"-59 PZoPosao riest rk-oohZ 04, 137,& P9VeP6*P 44w4aN4 !`rav'e- vi" 128.0 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 18, Block 3, BLAIRS WOODDALE THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. and of the location of all buildings thereon, and all visible encroach ments, if any, from or on said land. It also shows the location of a proposed house. As surveyed by me thiV 2nd day of June, 1983. 1_ marry 'jo son Land urve or Minn. Reg. No. 5065 4t CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA is Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 242 Agenda June 29, 1933 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance at 7319 Clinton Avenue Mr. Myron Gunderson has requested a variance to reduce the minimum lot area from 6,750 feet to 6,370 square feet to allow him to construct a single family dwelling on a lot in an R dis- trict. Mr_. Gunderson recently purchased this property, which is a lot of record, and will remove the existing structures on the lot. No specific house plan has been submitted as of this time so the staff is not able to determine if other variances will be necessary. • Zoning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.30, subdivision 4, requires a minimum area of 6,750 square feet in an R residence district, and Section 3.40, sub. 6 lists the three conditions which must be present before a vari- ance can be granted. Staff Review The staff reviewed the variance request against the three conditions which must be present for a variance to be granted and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. It is the staff's opinion that there are special circum- stances affecting this particular lot. As indicated above, the subject lot is a platted lot of record which previously was developed as a single family residence. Prior to the passage of the revised residential zoning ordinance, the subject lot could have been developed with a single family residence without a variance being required. The lot area requirements were found in the is city's subdivision ordinance which also stated that lots of record could be developed even though they did not Council Letter No. 242 -2- June 29, 1983 meet the lot area requirements. The revised ordinance changed the lot area standards and put them in the 41 zoning ordinance rather than the subdivision ordinance and eliminated the lot of record exemption. The sub- ject lot is similar in size to other lots-in that sub- division of the neighborhood and other property owners have been allowed to develop single family dwellings in the area. To deny this variance would create a hardship for Mr. Gunderson. 2. That the for 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons re- siding or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood. It is, the opinion of the staff that-if a single family • residence is developed on the lot within the ordinance requirements for single family dwellings, that the prop- osal would not be detrimental to the public welfare. As indicated earlier, the surrounding properties have de- veloped onto similar sized lots so the proposed development on the subject site would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the three conditions for granting a variance be granted because the variance have been met. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission at their meeting of June 28, 1983, unanimously recommended that this variance be granted. Respectfully submitt d, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Acting City Manager 40 TAM/eja It is the staff's opinion that denial of this variance would preclude reasonable use of the property. If the variance is denied there would be no use of the property allowed other than for open space, which,in the opinion of the staff, is not reasonable use of the property. NO. 14'1• $?. BK. K! 10 ?I 0 Z IRRY S. JOHNSON COMPANIES, INC. 401 WEST 79TH STREET BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55420 PHONE 16121 894.5341 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MylvoN rauN ?so?1 GoNS7 cd, er-ALV I''=ad I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 19, Block 3, BLAIRS WOODDALE THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. As surveyed by me or under my direct supe ision this 2nd day of June, 40 1983. Marry S Jo nson Land Surveyor Minn. Reg. No. 5065 Aw Lin