Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-096 CCRMember If lson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-96 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2000-007 WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2000-007 submitted by Mr. Melvin Raile requests a variance from City Code Section 35-400 to be allowed to erect a duplex on the property at 5411 Bryant Avenue North (the Subject Property); and and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is zoned R-2 (One and Two Family Residence); WHEREAS, the dimensions of the Subject Property are 63 feet wide by 136 feet deep with an area of 8,568 square feet; and WHEREAS, in an R-2 zone of the city permitted uses include single-family and two family residential structures, provided dimensional requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the minimum lot size requirements for a two family dwelling in the R-2 District are 75 feet wide and a minimum land area of 6,200 square feet per unit or 12,400 square feet for the two units of a duplex; and WHEREAS, the lot size requirements for a single-family lot in an R-2 are 60 feet wide and 7,600 square feet in area; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is of sufficient size to support a single family residential structure under the requirements of the Brooklyn Center City Code; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is surrounded on the west, north and south by single family homes and on the east by Bryant Avenue with single family homes on the opposite side of the street; and WHEREAS, the hardship asserted by the applicant is that the applicant desires to take advantage of purchase of a duplex dwelling from an off-site location and move it to the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 35-240, 2 provides that a variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-96 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 3. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. The City Council finds that the standards for a variance specified in the Ordinance quoted above are not met. Specifically, the Council finds: a. No hardship to the owner results from the strict application of the City Zoning Code. The property is suitable for development with a single family residential structure, which development would be consistent with the development of surrounding properties in the neighborhood. The property is not unique in shape, topographical conditions or other features that render the strict application of the Ordinance unreasonable. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are not unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are common generally to other property within the same zone and classification. The fact that the Subject Property has lot dimensions which are sufficiently large only for development of a single family residential structure is common to many other properties in the R-2 Zone which have been developed in full compliance with the requirements of the City Code. c. The alleged hardship is not related to the requirements of the Ordinance. Rather it is related to, and created by, the applicant and the applicant's desire to take advantage of a financial opportunity. This alleged hardship is not a hardship within the meaning of City Code Section 35-240, 2. d. The granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare and the neighborhood since it would constitute development at a higher density than prevails in the neighborhood generally. On the basis of the foregoing, the requested variance is denied. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-96 May 22, 2000 Date ATTEST: -City Clerk Mayor The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Debra Hilstrom and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Debra Hilstrom, Kay ia.sman, Ed Nelson, and Robert Peppe; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.