HomeMy WebLinkAbout7340 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1983/02/22REPLACEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 7340
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF
JAMES H. COX SEEKING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF
A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON A LOT WITH A LOT WIDTH OF FORTY
FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED SEVENTY-FIVE FEET AND A LOT
AREA OF 4,848 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 9,000
SQUARE FEET IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, AT
2712 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK:
Findings
1. On January 7, 1983, James H. Cox filed an application seeking a variance to
permit construction on a lot having a width of 40 feet and an area of 4,880
square feet instead of the required 75 feet in width and 9,000 square feet in area
for property located in the R-1, Single Family Residential District, at 2712 Vernon
Avenue South and legally described as:
Lot 4, Block 2, Birch Woods Addition
2. On January 27, 1983, the Board of Zoning Appeals met and recommended approval
of the variance on a 3-2 vote.
3 On February 22, 1983, the City Council held the public hearing and made
the Following findings:
a. The subject Lot 4 and the lot to the north, Lot 3, are vacant forty
foot lots and said lots were in common ownership, constituting one
buildable site under the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1959 without
the need for a variance in lot width or lot area.
b. Lots 3 and 4 were acquired by Ester Marie Swanson on August 17,
1912, by a deed recorded November 20, 1912, in the Office of the
Hennepin County Recorder as document number 656146. Ownership
of both lots did not change until a Decree of Distribution for the
- estate of Ester M. Nelson was filed on June 29, 1967, as document
number 3662080. Through a series of deeds which followed, title
to Lot 3 was vested in Mrs. Nelson's daughter, Phyllis Adair Strand,
and title to Lot 4 was vested in Mrs. Nelson's son, Robert C.
Nelson, on November 15, 1972.
c. The granting of the variance would not be in keeping with the spirit
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance because the two lots should have
been combined to comply with the zoning requirements.
d. At the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted establishing new zoning
controls and making the lots substandard, the two lots combined had
a reasonable use as a single building site.
e. The applicant knew or should have known at the time he negotiated
to purchase Lot 3 that the lot did not meet the ordinance requirements
and there was no certainty that permission would be granted for its
development as a single lot.
f. Granting this variance would create a precedent that could undermine
the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. This precedent would encourage
an owner of two adjacent, undeveloped and substandard lots to sell
one of the lots to a third party in order to avoid the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance.
The City Council, in considering the variance request, has taken into
account 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, the
effects of property values in the surrounding area, and the effect of
the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan.
h. The proposed variance would depreciate the value of neighboring
properties and would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of the community.
g.
Conclusion
The application for the requested variances is denied based upon the findings set
forth above.
Adopted by the City Council February 22, 1983
ATTEST:
Reviewed by administration:
,'• (2RA/vv/APA.-
1 y Manager U
Maior
2
Approved as to form and legality: