HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 2016-106 Denying Prel. Plat 5845 Kellogg Ave e
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-106
DENYING A PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES
AT 5845 KELLOGG AVENUE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina,Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. BACKGROUND.
1.01 Kyle Litwin,on behalf of Young Kim is proposing to subdivide the property at 5845 Kellogg
Avenue into two lots.
1.02 The existing home would remain.
1.03 Within this neighborhood,the median lot area is 6,715 square feet, median lot depth is 134.1
feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet.
1.04 The following described tract of land is requested to be divided:
Lots 13 and 14, Block 3 Fairfax,Hennepin County, Minnesota.
1.05 The owner of the described land desires to subdivide said tract in to the following described
new and separate parcels (herein called"parcels") described as follows:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Fairfax 5th Addition.
1.06 To accommodate the request the following is required:
1. A subdivision;
2. Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot;
3. Lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,709 square feet for each lot;and
4. A side yard setback variance from 5. To 4.7 feet for the existing structure.
1.07 A previous property owner was denied a similar request in 1994.
1.08 The two lots that constitute the Subject Property are held in common ownership by Applicant.
Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance provides: "If a non-conforming lot or parcel is, or at any
time since October 22,1951,has been,held in common ownership with all or part of an
adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with,or come close to complying
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street•Edina,Minnesota 55424
wwwEdinaMN.gov•952-927-8861 .Fax 952-826-0389
12esolution No. 2016-106
Page 2
with,the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this
Section, then such non-conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot
shall be considered as one lot and shall not be decreased in size below such minimum
requirements. If in a group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or
controlled by the same person,any single lot or parcel does not meet the full minimum depth,
width,area or lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this Section,such single lot or
parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed
under this Code."
1.09 The Subject Property is guided Single Family Residential under the City's Comprehensive
Plan and is zoned R-1,Single Dwelling Unit District.
1.10 On September 28, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the preliminary
plat,subdivision and variances.Vote: 7 Ayes and 1 Nay.
1.11 On October 18,2016,the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed subdivision.
Section 2. FINDINGS.
2.01 The proposed plat and subdivision do not meet ordinance standards for a subdivision,
because the proposed lots do not meet the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements for lot
area,lot width,and lot depth.
2.02 The variance standards have not been met:
1. The Subject Property is a conforming single-family residential lot with a new single-family
house and has a taxable market value of$412,000. Reasonable use of the property exists
today.
2. The proposed variances are not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance which is to require nonconforming lots in common ownership to be
developed as a single parcel.
3. There are no practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance standards.
Applicant does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner prohibited by the
zoning ordinance. The Subject Property is only 4,441 square feet larger than the required
minimum lot size. The proposed lots which are approximately 26% below the minimum
lot size requirement are not reasonable.
4. The practical difficulty alleged by the applicant's proposal to subdivide the property is
self-created.
5. The need for the variance is created only by Applicant's desire to maximize the return on
its investment.Such economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
6. There are no circumstances unique to the Subject Property that justify granting multiple
variance to enable the Applicant to create nonconforming lots.The Subject Property is
similar in size to several lots to the east.
Resolution No. 2016-106
Page 3
Section 3. The preliminary plat, subdivision and variances are denied.
Adopted this 1St day of November, 2016.
ATTEST:
iebr,a A. Mangen,eity, erk ovland, Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
CITY OF EDINA )
I,the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that
the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular
Meeting of November 1,2016, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2016.
City Clerk