HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-98 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1984/07/02RESOLUTION NO. 84-98
■ A RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF LUCILLE
M BURRY (HERBERT W HESS) FOR A VARIANCE UNDER SECTION 14-
128(5) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING
TO CREATE TWO SUBSTANDARD LOTS: ONE HAVING A LOT AREA OF
8,207 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 9,000 SQUARE FEET;
AND ONE HAVING A LOT AREA OF 8,807 SQUARE FEET, A FRONT YARD
SETBACK OF 30 FEET AND A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET INSTEAD
OF THE REQUIRED AREA OF 9,000 SQUARE FEET, FRONT YARD SETBACK
OF 35 FEET AND A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 35 FEET FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 2078
FLAG AVENUE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK:
Findings
1. On May 15, 1984, Lucille M. Burry (Herbert W. Hess) filed an application seeking
a variance to create two substandard lots: one having a lot area of 8,207 square
feet instead of the required 9,000 square feet; and one having a lot area of
8,807 square feet, a front yard setback of 30 feet and a rear yard setback of
20 feet instead of the required area of 9,000 square feet, front yard setback35
feet and a rear yard setback of 35 feet for property located in the R-1, Single
Family Residence District at 2078 Flag Avenue for the legal description as
follows, to -wit:
Lot 18, South Crestview Addition, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (Abstract)
2. On May 24, 1984, the Board of Zoning Appeals met and recommended denial of
the variance on a 4-0 vote.
3. On June 18, 1984, the City Council held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application, and moved to deny the request on a 5-
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.
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, Residential District.
C:nnnlusunn
The application for the variance is denied based upon the findings set forth above
and on the grounds that conditions required for approval do not exist.
ATTEST:
i y Jk7-1k
Reviewed by administration:
C ty Manager
Adopted by the City Council July 2, 1984
yor
Approved as to form and legality:
City attorney