HomeMy WebLinkAbout5562 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1976/07/19RESOLUTION NO.
5562
JULY 19, 1976
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE IN FRONT YARD REQUIRE-
MENTS FROM SECTION 6:064.5 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
PERMIT A FRONT YARD OF 29 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AT 4012 CEDAR LAKE
ROAD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. George E. and Mable L. Peters have applied for a variance from
Section 6:064.5 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a front yard of 29 feet
instead of the required 35 feet for property located in the R-1 Single Family
District at the following location, to -wit:
Lot 1, Block 2, except that part described as follows:
Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot 1; then
easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 1 to the
northeast corner thereof; thence southerly along the
easterly line of Lot 1 a distance of 30 feet; thence
westerly in a straight line to the point of beginning,
and Lot 2, Block 2, except that part thereof described
as follows: Commencing at the southwesterly corner of
said lot, thence southeasterly along the southwest line
of said lot 35 feet, thence northeasterly to a point in
the northeasterly line of said lot at a point 37.5 feet
southeasterly along said line from the northwesterly
corner of said lot; thence northwesterly along the
northeasterly line of said lot to the northwesterly
corner thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line
of said lot to the point of beginning, Forest Tract,
Lake Forest Addition, commonly known as 4012 Cedar Lake
Road.
2. The Board of Appeals has reviewed the application for a variance (Case
No. 76 -37 -VAR) and has recommended to the City Council that the application be
granted.
3. The Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon
the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety,
and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area and the effect of
the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding
property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the
proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish
or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary
to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question
are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not
apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such land
is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. It will not
merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate
demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
Conclusion
The application for a variance for the purpose designated is granted, based
upon the findings set forth above.
Adopted by the City Council July 19, 1976.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Reviewed for administration: Approved as to form and legality:
City Manager City Attorney
2