Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-39 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1990/04/02t 1D e 1/ RESOLUTION NO. 90-39 6y 1 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE IN RECOMBINATION OF LOTS FROM SECTIONS 14-128(5), 14-107(1) and 14-314(6) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW THE RECOMBINDATION OF THREE PLATTED LOTS INTO TWO WITH ONE LOT HAVING A WIDTH OF 50 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET AND AN AREA OF 6,750 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 9,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE OTHER LOT HAVING A WIDTH OF 70 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 2940-2944 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: r Findings • 1. John E. Bury has applied for a variance fro Sections 14-128(5), 14-107(1) and 14-314(6) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow the recombination of three platted lots into two with one lot having a width of 50 fee instead of the required 75 feet and an area of 6,750 square feet ins egad of the required 9,000 square feet and the other lot having a width of 70 feet instead of the required 75 feet located in the R-1, Single Family Residence District, at the following location, to -wit: Lots 9, 10, 11, Block 4, "J.F. Lyons 4th Addition" 2. On January 25, 1990, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application for a variance (Case No. 90 -1 - VAR) and authorized preparation of a Resolution of Denial on a vote of 4-0-0. 3. On February 22, 1990, the Board of Zoning Appeals, upon finding that the request did not satisfy the Ordinance necessary for granting a variance, approved a Resolution of Denial on a vote of 4-0-0. 4. On March 1, 1990, the applicant, John Bury, filed an appeal of this decision to the City Council. 5. On Monday, March 19, 1990, the City Council considered the appeal of John Bury from the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. At that meeting, the applicant represented to the City Council that denial of the variance would deprive him of all reasonable use of the vacant 40 foot lot and he further presented a petition in support of ' the variance request signed by several nearby property owners. 6. The Council has considered 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 effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. 7. 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 ajljacent 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 pio 6' 4 01° i other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question 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. 1 9. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. i It will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 10. The following conditions and safeguards are necessary in order to insure and will in fact insure that there will be no unreasonably adverse consequences to the granting of the variance: A. Any structure constructed on either of the lots created pursuant to this variance shall otherwise comply with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. i 11. The contents of Planning Case File 90 -1 -VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The application for a variance to allow the recombination of three lots into two is granted based upon the findings set forth above, with the understanding that this approval is good for one calendar year from this date and, if the subject property has not been recombined by the end of this calendar year, this approval shall become void. Adopted by the City Council April 2, 1990 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reviewed by administration: Approved as to form and execution: City Manager City Attorney 90-1-VAR.CC BOZA ,* SUBSTITUTED ORIGINAL RESOLUTION NO. 90-39 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE IN RECOMBINATION OF LOTS FROM SECTIONS 14-128(5), 14-107(1) and 14-314(6) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW THE RECOMBINDATION OF THREE PLATTED LOTS INTO TWO WITH ONE LOT HAVING A WIDTH OF 50 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET AND AN AREA OF 6,750 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 9,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE OTHER LOT HAVING A WIDTH OF 70 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 75 FEET IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 2940-2944 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: Findings 1. John E. Bury has applied for a variance from Sections 14-128(5), 14-107(1) and 14-314(6) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow the recombination of three platted lots into two with one lot having a width of 50 feet instead of the required 75 feet and an area of 6,750 square feet instead of the required 9,000 square feet and the other lot having a width of 70 feet instead of the required 75 feet located in the R-1, Single Family Residence District, at the following location, to -wit: Lot 9 and Lot 10 except south 10 feet, Lot 11 and south ten feet of Lot 10, Block 4, "J.F. Lyons 4th Addition" 2. On January 25, 1990, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application for a variance (Case No. 90 -1 - VAR) and authorized preparation of a Resolution of Denial on a vote of 4-0-0. 3. On February 22, 1990, the Board of Zoning Appeals, upon finding that the request did not satisfy the Ordinance necessary for granting a variance, approved a Resolution of Denial on a vote of 4-0-0. 4. On March 1, 1990, the applicant, John Bury, filed an appeal of this decision to the City Council. 5. On Monday, March 19, 1990, the City Council considered the appeal of John Bury from the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. At that meeting, the applicant represented to the City Council that denial of the variance would deprive him of all reasonable use of the vacant 40 foot lot and he further presented a petition in support of the variance request signed by several nearby property owners. 6. The Council has considered 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 effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. • 7. 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 *See Attached. 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. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question 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. 9. 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. 10. The following conditions and safeguards are necessary in order to insure and will in fact insure that there will be no unreasonably adverse consequences to the granting of the variance: A. Any structure constructed on either of the lots created pursuant to this variance shall otherwise comply with all applicable requirements of the Zoning ' Ordinance. 11. The contents of Planning Case File 90 -1 -VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The application for a variance to allow the recombination of three lots into two is granted based upon the findings set forth above, with the understanding that this approval is good for one calendar year from this date and, if the subject property has not been recombined by the end of this calendar year, this approval shall become void. Reviewed by administration: City Manager 90-1-VAR.CC BOZA Adopted by the City Council April 2, 1990 ii --n4 Mdivor i I Approved as to form and execution: y ttorney