Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-140 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1994/09/26RESOLUTION NO.94-140 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE IN FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD FROM SECTION 14:4-4.2 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD WITH A HEIGHT OF 6 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3.5 FEET 1N THE R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AT 4520 MORNINGSIDE ROAD. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: Findings 1. Joel J. and Bonnie L. Phillippi have applied for a variance from Section 14:4- 4.2 of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a fence in the front yard with a height of 8.5 feet instead of the required maximum height of 3.5 feet for a single family dwelling located in the R-2 Single Family Residence District at the following location, to - wit: See Attached Exhibit A - Legal Description 2. On May 26, 1994, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony from the public,discussed the application for a variance (Case No. 94 -22 -VAR) and, upon finding that the request did not satisfy the Ordinance necessary for granting a variance, approved Resolution of Denial. 3. On June 3, 1994, the applicants, Joel J. and Bonnie L. Phillippi, filed an appeal of this decision to the City Council. 4. On Monday, September 12, 1994, the City Council considered the appeal of Joel J. and Bonnie L. Phillippi from the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and approved a variance to permit a fence in the front yard with a height of 6 feet instead of the required maximum height of 3.5 feet. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. The swimming pool in the front yard requires a screening fence higher than that allowed in the Zoning Ordinance and this appears to be the only swimming pool in the City located a front yard. The land in question is a corner lot and by all indications, the front yard on Wooddale functions as a side yard for the applicant's and the side yard on Morningside Road functions as a front yard. 8. 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. 9. 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. The height of the fence in the front yard shall not exceed 6 feet in height as measured from the public sidewalk abutting Wooddale Avenue. b. The fence modifications shall be completed by November 30, 1994. 10. The contents of Planning Case File 94 -22 -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 for permitting a fence in the front yard with a height of 6 feet instead of the required 3.5 feet is granted based upon the findings set forth above. ATTEST: Adopted by the City Council September 26, 1994 ,k,i Reviewed by administration: M or io. Al -,,,,i, Approved as to form and execution: tP4, fitzt_ Cit Attorney 94 -22 -CC BOZA1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT A -- LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8, Wooddale Park, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 3 of said Block 8; thence East along the North line of said Lot 3, 136 feet; thence Southerly to a point in the South line of Lot 1, a distance of 136 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence West along the South line of said Lot 1, 136 feet to the said Southwest corner; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lots 1, 2, and 3, to the point of beginning; except that part of Lot 3, Block 8 in Wooddale Park described as follows: Commencing at Northwest corner of Lot 3, thence East along North line thereof 136 feet; thence Westerly to a point in the Westerly line of said Lot 3, 18 feet Southerly along said line from the Northwest corner of said Lot; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 3 to point of beginning. (Abstract) CASE NO. 94 -22 -VAR