Loading...
05-9611r 211 RESOLUTION NO. 9611 RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AND AFFIRMING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE AT 7221 SHERIDAN AVENUE Be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: I. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals hereby makes the following findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The City of Richfield (the "City") regulates, by ordinance, the location and size of detached garages on residential property. 2. The primary source of such regulations is contained in Appendix B of the Richfield City Code, which is also known as the Richfield Zoning Code. 3. On or about December 28, 2004 the City received an application from Shawn Ross (the "Applicant"), 7221 Sheridan Avenue, requesting a variance for an increase in the maximum square feet of gross floor area allowed for a private garage. 4. The property at 7221 Sheridan Avenue is located in the Single Family Residential (R) zoning district. 5. Subsection 521.05, subdivision 2 of the Richfield Zoning Code allows private garages as a permitted accessory use in the Single Family Residential District, provided the garage does not exceed 1,000 square feet gross floor area. 6. Subsection 521.13, subdivision 8 of the Richfield Zoning Code provides that an accessory building may not be greater in lot coverage than the principal building on the property. 7. The Applicant requested a variance to allow for a 24 foot by 24 foot garage addition, to an existing 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage, for a total of 1,152 square feet. A 24 foot by 24 foot garage will accommodate two cars, and the 24 foot by 24 foot addition would accommodate an additional two vehicles. 8. The existing house is approximately 23 feet by 37 feet for a total building envelope of 885 square feet. The lot coverage of the garage exceeds the lot coverage of the house by 267 square feet. 9. The parcel at 7221 Sheridan Avenue is 75 feet by 134.53 feet with a lot area of 10,090 square feet. Other properties in the neighborhood are of a similar size. 10. The garage meets required zoning standards for setback and height requirements, and the only variances required are from the provisions of Subsections 521.05, subd. 2 and 521.13, subd. 8. 11. On January18, 2005 the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the variance req uest. 12.At the hearing, the Applicant stated that he would like to keep the garage addition because it is already built. 13.At the hearing, the Applicant stated that he had hired a contractor for the job and that the contractor told him that all City permits had been pulled. The Applicant testified that the contractor had left the job and the Applicant had continued the work on the garage addition. The Applicant testified that he could not locate a written contract for the work and that he could not locate the contractor~ 14. On or about January 21,2005, the Hearing Examiner published a written decision denying the variance request. 15. On or about February 11, 2005, 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. 16. The appeal came before the Board for review and action on March 22, 2005,and was continued to April 26, 2005. The Board conducted a public hearing, at which the Applicant was provided the opportunity to testify. II. The Board hereby makes the following conclusions: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant has not shown that compliance with the provisions of subsections 521.05, subd. 2 and 521.13, subd. 8 will result in an undue hardship that denies the Applicant the reasonable use of the property. The existing 24 foot by 24 foot garage will accommodate two cars. Two-car garages are customary in most areas of the City, and a two-car garage allows a reasonable use of the property. The fact that the garage addition has been built already does not constitute an "undue hardship" within the meaning of state law or the Richfield Zoning Code. Although it may have an adverse economic impact on the Applicant, economic considerations alone do not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use of the property exists. 2. The Applicant has not demonstrated that any unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property that does not apply to other properties generally. The property is similar in lot size, house size and lot coverage to other properties in the neighborhood. The existing 24 foot by 24 foot garage is similar in size to other garages in the neighborhood. The fact that the garage addition has been built already does not constitute a "unique circumstance." To the extent that the completed garage addition could be considered a unique circumstance, the Applicant created that circumstance by failing to obtain proper permits or to ensure that proper permits were obtained. If required permit applications had been submitted, the City's building inspections division would have notified the Applicant that a variance was required before any construction could be started. 3. The variance, if granted, would alter the character of the neighborhood and would have adverse impacts on the neighborhood. A four-car garage is out of character in a neighborhood that consists primarily of smaller, single-story houses with detached one- car or two-car garages. The properties in the neighborhood do not have accessory structures that exceed the size of the principal residential dwellings on the same lots. The petition signed by the neighbors is an indication that the petition signers do not object to the variance, but the petition is not a legally sufficient substitute for the requirements that the Applicant demonstrate undue hardship and unique circumstances, both of which are lacking here. 4. The variance is not the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the undue hardship, since no undue hardship exists. 2 III. Based upon the foregoing, the Board hereby makes the following decision: DECISION The appeal of the decision by the Hearing Examiner to increase in the maximum square feet of gross floor area allowed for a private garage variance for 7221 Sheridan Avenue is hereby in all respects DENIED. The decision of the Hearing Examiner is affirmed, and the variance is denied. The Applicant is ordered to bring the garage at 7221 Sheridan into compliance with the provisions of the Richfield Zoning Code within 90 days (30 days to obtain all appropriate permits, and 60 days to complete thework with all appropriate inspections) and to pay all required permit fees and penalties. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 2 th d~y of ;wril 2005. 7?;i Martin J. Kirsc , ATTEST: \. 3