HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-11 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1989/01/171
1
RESOLUTION NO. 89-11
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE IN FENCE HEIGHT IN A FRONT
YARD SETBACK FROM SECTION 14-109(g)(ii) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE IN A
FRONT YARD SETBACK HAVING A HEIGHT OF 6 FEET INSTEAD OF THE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3.5 FEET IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE,
AND F-2, FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS AT 9219 CEDAR LAKE ROAD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
Findings
1. Louis F Pius and Mindy A. Pius have applied for a variance from Section
14-109(g)(ii) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit construction of a fence
in a front yard setback having a height of 6 feet instead of the maximum height of 3.5
feet for a single family house located in the R-1, Single Family Residence, and F-2,
Floodplain Districts at the following location, to -wit:
That part of the North 1/2 of the southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township
117, Range 21 described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner
of the said North 1/2 of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 7; thence
East along the south line of said North 1/2 of the Southwest Quarter,
975.0 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described;
thence North parallel to the West line of said Section 7, 584.15 feet more
or less to the Southerly line of Cedar Lake Road as now laid out and
opened; thence Northeasterly along the southerly line of said road, 104.33
feet; thence South parallel to the west line of said Section 7, 614.5 feet
more or less to the South line of said North 1/2 of the Southwest Quarter
of said Section 7; thence West along said south line to the actual point
of beginning. (Torrens Certificate No. 653814)
2. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for a variance
(Case No. 88 -91 -VAR) and has recommended to the City Council that the application
be denied.
3. The Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and werfare of The community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, 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 following special conditions apply to the property in question and 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:
a. The large park -and open space area, directly across Cedar
Lake Road to the north, allows the prevailing northerly
winds to blow onto the property without any break or
mitigation.
b. The steep hill, across Cedar Lake Road to the north,
results in air currents which deposit snow and windblown
debris on the subject property in excess of such deposition
on other properties along Cedar Lake Road.
c. The combination of steep topography and its relationship
to unobstructed prevailing winds is a unique circumstance.
d. The fence is not, and will not, be located on the right-
of-way of Cedar Lake Road, and will not adversely affect
adjacent single family residential properties.
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 construction of a fence in a front yard setback having
a height of 6 feet instead of the maximum height of 3.5 feet is granted based upon
the findings set forth above.
Adopted by the City Council January 17, 1989
ATTEST:
Reviewed for administration:
City Manager
A.) §4,,,,A,
Approved as to form and execution:
f
1