HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-12 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1989/01/17RESOLUTION NO. 89-12
A RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF
PAUL H. ROBERTS AND RAYNATA E. MERRILL FOR A VARIANCE
UNDER SECTIONS 14-128(5) and 14-314(1)(d) OF THE ST. LOUIS
PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A
SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED
6 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, AT 5100 WEST 29TH STREET
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
1. On September 12, 1988, Paul M. Roberts and Raynata E. Merrill filed an
application seeking variance to permit a side yard setback of 0 feet instead of
the required 6 feet for property located in the R-1, Single Family Residence
District, at 5100 West 29th Street, for the following legal description, to wit:
Lots 19, 20 and 21, except the West 61 feet thereof, Block 1,
"Latham's Minnetonka Boulevard Tract" (Torrens Certificate No.
716680)
2. On November 29, 1988, the Board of Zoning appeals reviewed the request and
recommended denial of the variance on a vote of 5-0.
3. On January 3, 1989, the city Council held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application, continued the public hearing to
January 17, 1989, and authorized preparation of a resolution of denial on a vote
of 6-0.
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 the requirements of Sections 14-219
and 14-220.11 of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the City
Council to grant variances. There are no factors related to the shape, size
or other extraordinary conditions of the lot which prevent a reasonable use.
b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property has had a
reasonable use in the past.
c. Granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the intent and
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance since, if granted, it would permit a 0
foot setback instead of the required 6 feet.
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 to not exist.
e. Granting of the variance may have an adverse impact on adjacent property
because, if granted, it could impair an adequate supply of light and air, and
impede emergency access.
ATTEST:
lake
City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council January 17, 1989
Mayo
Reviewed for administration:
/, xpoi
City Manager
ccr
Approved as to form and execution:
r
i