HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-119 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1984/08/06RESOLUTION NO. 84-119
A RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF SIDNEY
LADIN AND SHARLENE LADIN FOR A VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 14-128(5)
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION HAVING A REAR YARD
SETBACK OF 20 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 35 FEET FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, AT 4636
CEDARWOOD ROAD.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK:
Findings
1. On June 12, 1984, Sidney R. Ladin and Sharlene Ladin filed an application'seeking
a variance to permit the construction of an addition having a rear yard setback
of 20 feet instead of the required 35 feet for property located in the R-1, Single
Family Residence District, at 4636 Cedarwood Road for the legal description as
follows, to -wit:
Lot 10 except that part lying Northerly of a line extending from
a point on the Westerly line thereof 69 feet Northeasterly along
the Westerly line thereof from the Southwest corner thereof to a
point on the Easterly line thereof 106 feet Northwesterly along
the Easterly line thereof . from the Southeast corner thereof,
"Westridge", according to the recorded plat thereof. (Torrens Cert.
#371843)
2. On June 28, 1984, the Board of Zoning Appeals met and recommended denial of
the variance on a 4-1 vote.
3. On July 16, 1984, the City Council held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application, and authorized preparation of a
Resolution of Denial on a 6-0 vote.
4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the City
Council makes the following findings:
a. The requested variance does not meet requirements of Section 14-219 and
Section 14-220.1 of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the City
Council to grant a variance.
b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
C. Granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the intent and
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
d. There is no demonstrable or undue hardship under the terms of the Zoning
Ordinance or Minnesota Statute and therefore conditions necessary for
granting the requested variance do not exist.
C
e. The strict application of the terms of the City Zoning Ordinance to the
subject property does not prevent the owner and/or applicant in using the
property in a manner legally permissible within the R-1, Single Family
Residence District.
Conclusion
The application for the variance is denied based upon the findings set forth above
on the grounds that conditions required for approval do not exist.
ATTEST:
C►ty Cler
Reviewed by administration:
C'y Manager
Adopted by the City Council August 6, 1984
142'7t�
1�51or
Approved as to form and legality:
City Attorrney
i