HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-111 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1991/06/031
1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-111
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE IN LOT WIDTH FROM SECTION
14-128(5) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO
PERMIT A SUBDIVISION OF ONE 120 FOOT WIDE LOT INTO TWO 60
FOOT WIDE LOTS INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH OF 75
FEET IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 4082
COLORADO AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
Findings
1. Susan Fisher has applied for a variance from Section 14-128(5) of the
Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit the subdivision of one 120 foot wide lot into
two 60 foot wide lots instead of the required lot width of 75 feet for a single family house
located in the R-1, Single Family Residence District at the following location, to -wit:
Lot 3, Block 11, Brookside (Abstract)
2. On March 28, 1991, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing,
received testimony from the public,discussed the application for a variance (Case No. 91 -6 -
VAR) and authorized preparation of a Resolution of Denial on a vote of 3-1.
3. On April 25, 1991, 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.
4. On April 30, 1991, the applicant, Susan Fisher, filed an appeal of this
decision to the City Council.
5. On Monday, May 20, 1991, the City Council considered the appeal of Susan
Fisher from the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
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
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 Council specifically fmds the following.
a) Approval of the variance request is warranted on the basis of hardship
to the property owner inasmuch as 14 of the 20 lots in the R-1 District
between Excelsior Boulevard and Meadowbrook Boulevard are less
than 75 feet in width and 9 of those lots are 60 feet or less in width.
The Council finds that a reasonable use of property in this area
consists of lots of 60 feet in width and refusal of the request would
constitute a denial of reasonable use.
b) The shape and size of the lot constitute extraordinary and exceptional
conditions as the lot is 309 feet deep. The extraordinary depth of the
lot results in a density far lower than would normally be allowed in the
R-1, Single Family Residence District. Under current density
requirements, four houses could be located on a land area of 37,104
square feet which is the area of the subject property.
c) The subject property buts Meadowbrook Golf Course on the west.
This large open space se/is a condition peculiar to this property and
those immediately adjo g properties.
d) The subject property abuts an R-2 Single Family Residence District on
the north and an R-4 Multiple Family Residence District on the east,
both districts of which require 60 foot wide lots.
e) The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality as the
resulting lot sizes will be consistent with a majority of those currently
existing in the R-1, Single Family Residence District in this vicinity.
r) Granting the variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan as the resulting density of
development is consistent with the low density residential designation
on the Comprehensive Plan and the density requirements of the R-1
Zoning District.
11. The contents of Planning Case File 91 -6 -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 subdivide one 120 foot wide lot into two 60 foot wide lots
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 divided by the end of this calendar year, this approval shall become void.
Adopted by the City Council June 3, 1991
ATTEST:
(,) /010, -1A -
Reviewed by administration: Approved as to form and execution:
City Manager City Attorney
91 -6 -VAR. C C: B OZARE S 1