HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-092 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 2003/07/21s
•
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 03- 092
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36--36(d)(4) OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT AN INTENSIFICATION
OF AN EXISTING NON -CONFORMITY AND TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT OF
A CONTINUED SPECIAL PERMIT THAT DOES NOT BRING NON -CONFORMITIES
INTO COMPLETE OR GREATER COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT ZONING CODES
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RC -MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT AT 300, 310, 320, 330, 340 and 350 FORD ROAD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1 Coach Homes of Shelard, a condominium association, has applied for a vanance from
Section 36-36(d)(4) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit an intensification
of an existing non -conformity and to allow an amendment of a continued special permit
that does not bnng non -conformities into complete or greater compliance with current
zoning codes for property located in the RC -Multi -Family Residential Zoning Distnct at
the following location, to -wit
Lot 1, Block 3, Shelard Park (Condo No. 167 Coach Homes of Shelard)
2. On July 2, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of a variance.
3. The Planning Commission 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, nsk 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 surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the 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 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.
ill 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.
Resolution No. 03-092 -2-
7. The applicant is expenencing considerable cost to repair the damaged structure due to
improper installation and caulking at the time of construction. The unit cost to apply a
small area of stucco is considerably higher than when applying to a larger area. The
Planning Commission found that in addition to these higher costs, the area of the building
where the stucco currently exists is not very distinguishable from off site.
8. The contents of Planning Case File No. 03 -34 -VAR are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
9. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this vanance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
10. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building
or structure for which the variance is granted is removed
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance to permit an intensification of an existing non -conformity and to
allow an amendment of a continued special permit that does not bring non -conformities into
complete or greater compliance with current zomng codes is granted based upon the finding(s)
set forth above.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: dopted by the City Council July 21, 2003
City Manager
Attest:
. e f ±ccper
Deputy
� it e�
03 -34 -VAR n/res-ord
•
•
40/
VARIANCE
Duplicate
Filing
Ci�i'tlflf �+r
RESOLUTION NO. 03- 092
'lF F ICE '.ECOPUElt
1FHNE rIlt COUNTY t NWES01,1
CE n f II ,r r F It_ L1 6,HEI I?R
2003 AUG 26 P11 1: 23
At; u0.1;1;i1Eit 1 8145483
f7t','ii:l. 4-4..<.rt1 LJ C
COPS
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-36(d)(4) OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT AN INTENSIFICATION
OF AN EXISTING NON -CONFORMITY AND TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT OF
A CONTINUED SPECIAL PERMIT THAT DOES NOT BRING NON -CONFORMITIES
INTO COMPLETE OR GREATER COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT ZONING CODES
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RC -MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT AT 300, 310, 320, 330, 340 and 350 FORD ROAD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Coach Homes of Shelard, a condominium association, has applied for a variance from
Section 36-36(d)(4) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit an intensification
of an existing non -conformity and to allow an amendment of a continued special permit
that does not bring non -conformities into complete or greater compliance with current
zoning codes for property located in the RC -Multi -Family Residential Zoning District at
the following location, to -wit:
Lot 1, Block 3, Shelard Park (Condo No. 167 Coach Homes of Shelard)
2. On July 2, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of a variance.
Resolution No 03-092 -2-
3. The Planning Commission 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.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the 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 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 distnct in which such land is located.
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.
7. The applicant is experiencing considerable cost to repair the damaged structure due to
improper installation and caulking at the time of construction. The unit cost to apply a
small area of stucco is considerably higher than when applying to a larger area. The
Planning Commission found that in addition to these higher costs, the area of the building
where the stucco currently exists is not very distinguishable from off site.
8. The contents of Planning Case File No 03 -34 -VAR are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
9. Under the Zomng Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
10. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building
or structure for which the variance is granted is removed.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance to permit an intensification of an existing non -conformity and to
allow an amendment of a continued special permit that does not bring non -conformities into
complete or greater compliance with current zoning codes is granted based upon the finding(s)
set forth above.
-t
Resolution No. 03-092 -3-
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK )
The undersigned, being the duly qualified Deputy City Clerk of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, certifies that the foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of the original
Resolution No. 03-092 adopted at the St. Louis Park City Council meeting held on July 21, 2003.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of St. Louis Park this 1st day of August, 2003.
Nancy J. Stro , eputy City Clerk