HomeMy WebLinkAbout7378 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1983/05/02RESOLUTION NO. 7378
A RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF
FREDERIC M. ROSE SEEKING A VARIANCE TO DIVIDE A SINGLE LOT, LOT 3,
BLOCK 2, BROOKSIDE SECOND DIVISION, MEASURING 207 FEET ALONG
BRUNSWICK AND MEADOWBROOK AND 146 FEET DEEP CONTAINING 28,700
SQUARE FEET AND CONTAINING A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, AT 4223
BRUNSWICK AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK:
Findings
1. On February 17, 1983, Frederic M. Rose filed an application seeking a variance to
permit dividing a single lot, Lot 3, Block 2, Brookside Second Division, measuring
207 feet along Brunswick and Meadowbrook and 146 deep containing 28,700 square
feet and containing a single family house for property located in the R-1, Single
Family Residence District, at 4223 Brunswick Avenue South and legally described as:
Lot 3, Block 2, "Brookside Second Division" (Abstract)
2. On March 24, 1983, the Board of Zoning Appeals met and recommended approval of
the variance on a 4-0-1 vote.
3. On April 18, 1983, the City Council held the public hearing and made the following
findings:
a. The parcel of land proposed to be divided is under single ownership and
developed with one single family house.
b. The parcel can be divided into two parcels—a northerly vacant lot
75 feet wide and a southerly lot approximately 127 feet wide. Such
division is permitted under the Ordinance and yields one additional
vacant lot for development.
c. Granting a variance to allow for a third lot would not be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
d. Dividing the parcel into two lots as permitted without a variance
provides a reasonable use for the property, and no undue hardship
exists using the property consistent with the Ordinance.
e. Granting a variance to allow a third lot on the property would have
adverse physical and economic effects on abutting property and
would not be consistent with the lot widths of properties with
frontage on Meadowbrook Boulevard which would be the frontage
of the third lot if the variance were granted.
f. The application does not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements
for obtaining a variance
g.
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 allowing more than two lots.
h. Granting this variance would create a precedent that could undermine
the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance.
i. 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.
The proposed variance would depreciate the value of neighboring
properties and would be detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
1.
Conclusion
The application for the requested variance is denied based upon the findings set forth above.
Adopted by the City Council May 2, 1983
ATTEST:
4,e0 g
y Clerk
Reviewed for administration:
cf eatA."44,1A-teir
ty Manager
Approved as to form and legality:
City torney