HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 09-04-2019CITY OF PLYMOUTH
AGENDA
Planning Commission
September 4, 2019, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. PUBLIC FORUM
3. APPROVE AGENDA
4. CONSENT AGENDA -These items are considered to be routine andwill be enacted byone
motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner or citizen so
requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere
on the agenda.
4A Approve proposed August 21, 2019 minutes
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. NEW BUSINESS
6A William and Michelle Reynolds. Setback variance to allow construction of a
34 -foot by 44.5 -foot, two-level addition for property located at 1745 Troy
Lane (2019062)
7. ADJOURNMENT
Location Map for Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
® City Council Chambers
THIS REPRESENTS A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION AND DATA
FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE AND OTHER SOURCES THAT HAS
NOT BEEN FIELD VERIFIED. INFORMATION SHOULD BE FIELD
City of VERIFIED AND COMPARED WITH ORINGIAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS.
Plymouth, Minnesota
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 2.25 3
Miles
Proposed Minutes 4A
Planning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2019
Chair Anderson called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on August 21, 2019.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Bryan Oakley, Donovan
Saba, Julie Witt, David Witte, Justin Markell and Jaspreet (Jesse) Narr.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson, Senior Planner Kip Berglund, Senior
Planner Shawn Drill, and City Engineer Chris LaBounty.
OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Ned Carroll.
Chair Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Plymouth Forum
No one requested to speak at the Forum.
Approval of Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Markell, and seconded by Commissioner Witte, to approve
the agenda. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
Consent Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Witte, and seconded by Commissioner Narr, to adopt the
Consent Agenda that included the followingit
(4.01) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on August 7, 2019.
With all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
Public Hearings
Proposed Minutes 1 of 5 Meeting of August 21, 2019
(5.01) Public Hearing on preliminary plat and variances for I -Site Development LLC for
Parker's Lakeside Third Addition to allow the division of a 0.68 -acre parcel at 645 Orchid
Lane (2019064)
Senior Planner Berglund provided a summary of the project.
Commissioner Witte referenced the certificate of survey, specifically the legal description, and
asked why the city is entertaining a request to re -plat if only the PID numbers are being
combined at the county level.
Senior Planner Berglund confirmed that the lots currently have separate PIDs. He stated that
there is no lot line denoting the two PIDs, and therefore a subdivision is needed to create the two
legally described lots.
Commissioner Witte stated that if the lots existed, there would then be two legally
nonconforming lots and only the variance requests would be before the commission. He asked
for clarification on why this action is necessary.
Chair Anderson explained that once a property is consolidated, two lots no longer exist, rather
the property exists as one.
Commissioner Narr referenced the site plan and asked for clarification on the red stars on the
graphic displayed.
Senior Planner Berglund stated that the numbers shown are the lot areas according to Hennepin
County, and the red stars identify lots that meet or exceed the minimum lot width requirements.
Chair Anderson stated that the zoning rules were changed in 1996, and therefore all the lots
within the neighborhood without red stars are nonconforming lots. He asked for information on
what could be done in the case of damage or fire.
Senior Planner Berglund provided additional details on how the ordinance addresses
redevelopment of nonconforming lots.
Chair Anderson asked for additional details on the utility connection available on the property
and whose responsibility it would be if the connection is no longer sufficient.
City Engineer LaBounty replied that would be the responsibility of the property owner, should a
new connection be required.
Commissioner Oakley asked when the property was consolidated.
Senior Planner Berglund stated that staff was unable to find the date of consolidation. He noted
that the subdivision was created in 1914, and the home was constructed in 1949.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that recordkeeping from times past was not as thorough as it
is today, and therefore there is not always adequate history available.
Proposed Minutes 2 of 5 Meeting of August 21, 2019
Robbie Hyland, the applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions.
Commissioner Markell asked for details on the homes the applicant intends to build.
Mr. Hyland provided rough sketches of the homes and highlighted some of the elements of the
homes he intends to construct.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Chair Anderson introduced Meghan Harrington, 635 Orchid Lane, who stated that she has never
had issues with drainage on her property and wanted to ensure that the subject properties would
be graded correctly to handle the drainage and not push that water onto adjacent properties. She
referenced the change in lot size requirements and asked why the minimum lot size would be
allowed to be decreased in this request.
Chair Anderson introduced Tom Uhde, 710 Quantico Lane, who stated that he is concerned with
tax values and the height of the proposed homes. He stated that the taxes in the area increased
substantially the previous year, and he was concerned that these larger homes would again cause
an increase in taxes for the neighboring properties. He also expressed concern with drainage.
He stated that the previous property owner at the subject property had the lots consolidated about
ten years ago when the street project was completed in order to avoid paying two assessments for
the lots.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Senior Planner Berglund stated that the resolution contains conditions related to drainage and
grading.
City Engineer LaBounty explained that the applicant is proposing to have all the drainage
contained entirely within the site and drain to the street. He noted that a yard drain would be
required between the two homes to provide additional capacity.
Planning Manager Thomson stated that the applicant came forward with a request for the plat,
which is why this has come forward.
Chair Anderson stated that it appears the consolidation occurred to avoid paying two assessments
for street reconstruction and asked if the second assessment would be charged at this time.
City Engineer LaBounty explained how assessments are charged. He noted that if the property
was one lot at the time of the project, it would only be charged one assessment, and the city
would not go back to reassess the property if it is now subdivided.
Commissioner Oakley stated that in future assessments, the property would be considered as two
lots and assessed as such.
Proposed Minutes 3 of 5 Meeting of August 21., 2019
Senior Planner Berglund stated that the tax base and tax amounts are set by Hennepin County
Assessing. He noted that typically changes to one property does not impact another property, but
staff could ask additional questions of the county.
Mr. Hyland stated that he does not have an exact height for the proposed homes, but would
estimate 23 to 26 feet for the two-story homes, dependent on the roof pitch.
Commissioner Witte assumed that the height is measured from grade and asked if the elevation
of the homes would be raised to address drainage issues.
Mr. Hyland stated that the lot is pretty flat to begin with, and therefore he did not see that there
would be much change to the elevation.
Chair Anderson introduced Chad Krupa, 8744 Rosewood Lane, Maple Grove, who asked if the
assessment value for adjacent properties would decrease on future projects or whether another
assessment would simply be added.
City Engineer LaBounty explained that in theory if there were more units on a street, the
assessment would then be decreased for the homes as the total assessment cost is split between
the number of units on the street.
Motion was made by Commissioner Markell, and seconded by Commissioner Narr, to
recommend approval of the request by I -Site Development LLC for a preliminary plat and
variance for Parker's Lakeside Third Addition to allow the division of a 0.68 -acre parcel at 645
Orchid Lane. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried.
(5.02) Public Hearing on City of Plymouth zoning ordinance amendments related to
implementation of 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2019067)
Senior Planner Drill provided a summary of the amendments.
Planning Manager Thomson noted that the changes to the Surface Water Management Plan are in
response to a requirement of the watersheds.
Commissioner Witte referenced where bike trails cross a creek and asked the provisions that
would be provided for those crossings.
Senior Planner Drill replied that the changes would not have any impact on the trails.
Commissioner Witte asked for additional input on the stream buffer signs.
Senior Planner Drill provided details on the signs, noting that there would be a physical post with
a sign attached indicating the boundary of a stream buffer.
Commissioner Narr asked for additional information on high quality wetlands and whether this
would be applicable to seasonal wetlands.
Proposed Minutes 4 of 5 Meeting of August 21, 2019
City Engineer LaBounty explained that the current code identifies the values of wetlands,
whereas the new language will align with the language used by the watersheds. He confirmed
seasonal wetlands would be taken into account.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing.
Chair Anderson closed the public hearing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Oakley, and seconded by Commissioner Witte, to
recommend approval of the request by the City of Plymouth for zoning ordinance amendments
related to implementation of 2040 Comprehensive Plan. With all members voting in favor, the
motion carried.
Adjournment
Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m.
Proposed Minutes 5 of 5 Meeting of August 21, 2019
Agenda Number r. "
File 2019062
PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING
STAFF REPORT
TO: Plymouth Planning Commission
FROM: Kip Berglund, Senior Planner (509-5453) through Barbara Thomson,
Planning Manager
MEETING DATE: September 4, 2019
APPLICANT: William and Michelle Reynolds
PROPOSAL: Variance to the front -yard setback for a home addition
LOCATION: 1745 Troy Lane North
GUIDING: LA -1 (living area 1)
ZONING: FRD {future restricted development}
REVIEW DEADLINE: November 2, 2019
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The applicants are requesting approval of a setback variance to allow a 34 -foot by 44.5 -foot two-
level addition that would include both living space and garage space. The new addition would be
set back 42..8 feet from the east front lot line, where the zoning ordinance requires 50.
Notice of the public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of the site. A copy
of the notification area map is attached.
2419052
Page 2
CONTEXT:
Surrounding Land Uses
Natural Characteristics of Site
The lot is located in the Minnehaha Creek watershed and is within the shoreland overlay district
for Mooney Lake. It is not located in a floodplain management overlay district, and there are no
wetlands on the property.
Previous Actions Affecting Site
The subject lot was created in 1959 as part of the Registered Land Survey Number 854. The home
was built in 1957.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposal
meets the standards for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance
because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards for a variance.
ANALYSIS OF REQUEST:
The applicants are requesting to allow construction of a 34 -foot by 44.5 -foot two-level addition.
The addition would include a tuck -under garage and expanded main level garage with expanded
living space on both levels. Under the proposal, a portion of the addition (roughly 50 square feet)
would be set back 42..8 feet from the east front lot line, where 50 feet is specified.
The proposed front yard setback is within 75 percent of the required 50 -foot front yard setback (at
least 37.5 feet). Therefore, the request Gould have been approved administratively through the
minor variance application process. However, during the 14 -day response period for all properties
within 200 feet of the property, staff received one response in opposition to the request (three
responses were received in support of the request). Therefore, the request could no longer be
considered "minore' and must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved or denied
by the City Council.
The applicants state that the proposed addition would require demolition of the existing garage
and deck behind the garage. The new addition would add onto the existing living space and include
Adjacent Land Use
Guiding
Zoning
North, Northeast
single family homes on unplatted
(across Troy Lane)
LA -1
FRD
and West
property
South and East
Single family homes in RLS
LA -1
FRD
(registered land survey) No. 854
Natural Characteristics of Site
The lot is located in the Minnehaha Creek watershed and is within the shoreland overlay district
for Mooney Lake. It is not located in a floodplain management overlay district, and there are no
wetlands on the property.
Previous Actions Affecting Site
The subject lot was created in 1959 as part of the Registered Land Survey Number 854. The home
was built in 1957.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposal
meets the standards for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance
because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards for a variance.
ANALYSIS OF REQUEST:
The applicants are requesting to allow construction of a 34 -foot by 44.5 -foot two-level addition.
The addition would include a tuck -under garage and expanded main level garage with expanded
living space on both levels. Under the proposal, a portion of the addition (roughly 50 square feet)
would be set back 42..8 feet from the east front lot line, where 50 feet is specified.
The proposed front yard setback is within 75 percent of the required 50 -foot front yard setback (at
least 37.5 feet). Therefore, the request Gould have been approved administratively through the
minor variance application process. However, during the 14 -day response period for all properties
within 200 feet of the property, staff received one response in opposition to the request (three
responses were received in support of the request). Therefore, the request could no longer be
considered "minore' and must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved or denied
by the City Council.
The applicants state that the proposed addition would require demolition of the existing garage
and deck behind the garage. The new addition would add onto the existing living space and include
2019062
Page 3
a newly designed two-level garage. Each level of garage would be roughly 999 square feet. The
applicants state that the additional garage space would allow for personal storage and vehicles.
Having the additional garage space would allow materials and vehicles to be stored inside rather
than outside.
Section 21120 of the zoning ordinance states that attached accessory building space (e.g., garage,
storage or workshop area, etc.) not exceeding 1,000 square feet in floor area shall be permitted per
dwelling unit. Except, if an attached accessory building is constructed with a main level and with
a lower level (i.e., below grade or walk out) using materials such as pre -cast concrete plank, such
attached accessory building shall not exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area per level. Therefore,
the proposed two-level garage meets the zoning ordinance allowance for square footage.
The red line on an excerpt of the survey below represents the required 50 -foot setback from the
east property line. The blue area shows the proposed addition. The highlighted area shows the
triangular area that would encroach into the front yard setback (roughly 50 square feet). The
applicants state that the addition was designed to fit in both architecturally and aesthetically with
the existing home. Having the tuck -under garage would avoid having to put a detached garage on
the property.
DRIVE
Ea i OF o `s.$) _ Fy
o`
WELL )rJ`,P.
X38 r [ EV GEPLOoR 1 € y-� _ I ' 1 N 5
25 Q r 10td 51 , �...Q 01ROPr5SEO
Al- ;ETAR�NG
403
Z ALL
hX'S TfOUsE hG
1
36 / y
14
I h� 6 Z
�
_ 6
5� r� PROPOSED
Impen)laus sirs face
The property is in the shoreland for Mooney Lake and therefore the ordinance stipulates a
maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent. The subject property is 1.12 acres (48,787
square feet) and up to 12.,196 square feet could be impervious surface coverage. The applicants
have provided a written calculation of the proposed impervious surface coverage stating that, if
approved, the impervious surface of the lot would be 1 S.1 percent (8,839 square feet). A condition
is included in the attached resolution that the survey be revised to include the existing and proposed
impervious surface percentage.
2019062
Page 4
In addition to the setback variance, the applicants have also requested to add a second driveway
from Troy Lane to the lower level garage of the new addition. The existing shared driveway from
Troy Lane to the main level garage would remain. The zoning ordinance states that single family
uses shall be allowed one driveway access per lot, except when the property exceeds the required
street frontage per zoning district requirements, a second driveway access may be allowed by
approval of the Zoning Administrator. Staff notes that the subject property exceeds the required
street frontage for a lot within the FRD zoning district and there is a significant elevation change
from the existing driveway and the proposed driveway. Therefore, the zoning administrator will
approve the second driveway request contingent upon approval of the setback variance.
Staff reviewed the request according to the standards listed in section 21034 of the zoning
ordinance and has made the following findings:
1. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would be in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of this Chapter, and would be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2, The applicants have demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the
Chapter because:
a. the request is reasonable and the property would be used in a reasonable manner;
b. the request is due to circumstances not created by the property owners as the home
was not constructed by the property owners. In addition, the home was constructed
at an angle and not parallel to Troy Lane, thus limiting the ability to expand off that
side of the home; and
c. the variance would not alter the essential character of the lot or neighborhood.
3. The variance request is not based exclusively upon economic considerations, but rather, is
based on a desire to improve the livability of the home.
4. The requested variance and resulting construction would not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, A small percentage
of the proposed addition would encroach into the required setback.
5. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase traffic congestion in
public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish
property values within the neighborhood.
6. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address the practical difficulties.
The design and placement of the home make it difficult for expansion off the east side of the
home and the proposed home addition project would meet or exceed all other zoning
regulations.
2019052
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION:
Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the requested variance at
1715 Troy Lane North, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the attached resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution Approving Variance
2. Variance Standards
3. Location Map
4. Aerial Photo
5. Notification Area Map
5, Applicant's Narrative and Graphics
V,.%PP nnmgAppllcaham%ZQ19�W19Mi RaynMd& atdam" setback VAp�Comm DrvJ PC Rep-DP10 f-=15).dnd
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-
RESOLUTION
019-
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR WILLIAM AND MICHELLE REYNOLDS
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1745 TROY LANE NORTH (2019052)
WHEREAS, William and Michelle Reynolds have requested approval of a variance to reduce the
front yard setback to 42.8 feet where 50 feet minimum is specified; and
WHEREAS, the variance would allow construction of a new two-level addition onto the south
and east side of the existing home; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as:
That part of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 854, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying Easterly
of a line and its extensions thereof, beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line of said Tract B
distant 212.73 feet Southwesterly from the most Northerly corner thereof, to a point on the
Southerly line of said Tract B distant 230.50 feet West of the Southeast Corner thereof and there
ending.
From Doc. No. 7031668:
That part of the following described property:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 118, Range 22, described as follows:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the centerline of Tract I, Registered Land Survey No.
854, with the northwesterly line of said Registered Land Survey; thence northwesterly on a line
forming an angle in the westerly quadrant of 85 degrees and 45 minutes with said northwesterly
line, a distance of 160 feet; thence deflecting right 14 degrees a distance of 48.1 feet; thence
deflecting left 97 degrees, 28 minutes and 48 seconds a distance of 126.71 feet; thence
southerly to a point on the northwesterly line of said Registered Land Survey 229.27 feet
southwesterly from the point of beginning; thence northeasterly along said northwesterly line
to the point of beginning.
Which lies southerly and southeasterly of a line described as follows:
Commencing at the point of intersection of the centerline of said Tract I with the northwesterly
line of said Registered Land Survey No. 854; thence northwesterly, along the northeasterly line
of the tract hereinabove described a distance of 110.00 feet, to a point herein after referred to
as "Point A"; thence continuing northwesterly, along last described course, a distance of 19.00
feet, to a point hereinafter referred to as "Paint B"; thence westerly deflecting to the left 56
degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds, to the westerly line of the tract of land hereinabove described,
said point hereinafter referred to as "Point C"; thence southerly, along said westerly line, a
distance of 36.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the kine to be described; thence easterly,
along a line passing through the above referenced "Point A", to a point distant 74.00 feet
westerly from said "Point A"; thence northeasterly, to a point on a line drawn between the
above referenced "Point B" and "Point C", distant 58.00 feet westerly from said "Point B";
thence easterly to said "Point B" and said line there terminating; and
Resolution 2019-
(2019462)
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by William and Michelle Reynolds for a
front yard setback variance to allow a 42.8 -foot rear yard setback where 50 feet minimum is specified,
for 1745 Troy Lane, subject to the following findings and conditions:
1. The requested variance is hereby approved to allow a 34 -foot by 44.5 -foot two-level addition on
the south and east side of the existing home, in accordance with the application and plans received
by the City on July 5, 2019, and additional information on August 9, 2419, except as may be
amended by this resolution.
2. The requested variance is approved, based on the finding that all applicable variance standards
have been met. Specifically,
a. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would be in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of this Chapter, and would be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
b. The applicants have demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the
ordinance regulations, because:
1. the request is reasonable and the property would be used in a reasonable manner;
2. the request is due to circumstances not created by the property owners as the Dome was
not constructed by the property owners. In addition, the home was constructed at an
angle and not parallel to Troy Lane, thus limiting the ability to expand off that side of the
home; and
3. the variance would not alter the essential character of the lot or neighborhood.
C. The variance request is not based upon economic considerations, but rather, is based upon a
desire to improve the livability of the home.
d. The requested variance and resulting construction would not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. A small percentage
of the proposed addition would encroach into the required setback.
e. The requested variance and resulting construction would not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it increase traffic congestion or the danger of
fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the
neighborhood.
f. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address the practical difficulties.
The design and placement of the home make it difficult for expansion off the east side of the
home and the proposed home addition project would meet or exceed all other zoning
regulations.
3. A building permit is required prior to commencement of the project.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide an updated survey
identifying the existing and proposed impervious surface percentage on the lot. The proposed
impervious surface percentage on the lot shall be 25 percent or less.
Resolution 2019-
(2019062)
Page 3
5. In canjunction with issuance of the required building permit, the addition shall be built to match
the architecture of the existing home with similar colors, roof pitch, etc.
The variance shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or
applicant has commenced the authorized improvement or use, or unless the applicant, with the
consent of the property owner, has received prior approval from the city to extend the expiration
date for up to one additional year, as regulated under section 2 103 0.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
APPROVED by the Plymouth City Council this **** day of *******
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS.
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota,
certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on
with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof.
WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this day of
City Clerk
rp)City of
Plymouth
Adding QuWlty to Life
Community Development Department
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, INN 55447
(763)509-5450
FAX (763)509-5407
ZONING ORDINANCE
VARIANCE STANDARDS
The City Council or Zoning Administrator may approve a variance application (major or
minor, respectively) only upon finding that all of the following criteria, as applicable,
have been met.
1. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would be in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of this Chapter, and would be consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
2. The variance applicant has satisfactorily established that there are practical difficulties
in complying with this Chapter. "Practical difficulties" means that:
a. the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
this Chapter;
b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property that
were not created by the landowner; and
c. the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality.
3. The variance request is not based exclusively upon economic considerations.
4. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would not be detrimental to the
public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood.
5. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase traffic
congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or
substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood.
6. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address or alleviate the
practical difficulties.
Section 21030 -Plymouth Zoning Ordinance
Forms: ZOvariancestds.dorx
2019062
Legend
V ® C. Comercial
William and Michelle Reynolds ® CC, City Center
1745 Troy Lane North CO. Commercial Office
® IP, Planned Industrial
Request for a Variance a LA Living Area i
LA -2, Living Area 2
LA -3, Living Area 3
® LA -4, Living Area 4
250 125 0 250 500 ® LA -R,
LA -R2
Feet ® LA -R3
riboty of LA -RT
Plymouth, Minnesota ® P -I, PubliGSemi-PublicHnstitutional
2019062 - Aerial Phonograph
250 125 0 250 500
PC.,ty of Feet
Plymouth, Minnesota
Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map
Date: 7/18/2019
Q�
. cadx6 ,
V
Buffer Size: 200
Map Comments:
J,OVJ%,n N� s
7
4
f
th.Ave•N
t
01
0 100 200 400 Feet
IIIiIiiij
This data (i) Is [urn irhed 'AS IS' with norepresentatian as to
oompeteness or accuracy; (i) is furn'shedwilh no warranty of any
kind; and (ii) is notsuilable for laga1, engineerirq or sur wyng
purposes. Hennepin County shat not be IONefor any damage, injury
or loss resulting from this data.
For mareinfprnetion, contact Hennepn Cou*GIS Office
300 8th Stree ISouth, Mi nn ea polis. MN 5548719 is.info@hennepin.us
Request for Variance � R CC C I1 ,C D
1745 Troy Lane N JUL 0 '5 2019
Plymouth, MN LCOMmunit'y
Plymouth
Nvebpnien
Bill and Michelle Reynolds would like to put an addition onto their newly acquired home at 1745 Troy
Lane N, Plymouth. The design of the addition would require demolition of the existing garage and deck
behind the garage and then adding on living space and a newly designed two-level garage. In order to
accommodate the addition as designed, we would like to request two variances from the city of
Plymouth. The two variances we are requesting are minor in nature.
Variance 1
For property zone FRD, the city of Plymouth requires a 50' setback from the property line. Our
requested addition would have a right triangle of the garage 7.7 feet (measurement from
Gronberg & Assoc, Inc) by 12.5 feet (measurement by Gronberg & Assoc, Inc) by 14.7 feet
(calculated) = 48.1 square feet set back less than 50 feet from the property line. The closest
point of the garage would be set back 42.3 feet off the property line. The 7.7 feet is 15% of the
required 50 foot setback, which qualifies this as a minor variance (less than 25%). I believe the
city of Plymouth only requires a 25' setback for non -FR❑ zoned residential properties. For
reference, we are not asking for a setback less than 25', as would be allowed elsewhere in the
city.
Variance 2
We are requesting a second entry point from Troy Lane onto our property. We would like to
expand the garage from an existing 2 car garage in order to accommodate storing additional
cars inside as we are car collectors. Having additional garage space will allow us to keep all
vehicles inside, rather than having vehicles stored outside. Storing cars outside would not be
aesthetically pleasing to our neighbors.
Due to the placement of the home on the property, we are restricted as to how we can put on
an addition, including an expanded garage. We are attempting to maintain the architectural
integrity of the property by having the garage on only one end of the house and not adding a
detached garage (which would also be restricted due to Plymouth city regulations).
In order to accomplish this, we are requesting to put a tuck under garage on the east end of the
home, with a second entry from Troy Lane. As part of our planned addition, we are staying
under the requirement from the city of Plymouth and keeping the square footage of each level
of the garage tinder 1000 square feet (998.8 square feet).
Troy Lane is a private road, with 15 homes on it. 5 of the 15 homes (1615, 1750, 1810, 1840 and
1870) currently have multiple access points off of Troy Lane. In addition, the incline of the
property from the southeast corner to the northeast corner is more than would reasonably
allow a driveway to be installed allowing access from the existing driveway to the new tuck
under garages.
Answers to questions on Variance Summary Application Checklist
Question I -
The variances we are requesting are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this
chapter in that we are minimizing the impact on our neighbors and attempting to retain the
architectural aesthetics of the neighborhood in general. In addition, we are trying to increase
the value of our home, which benefits both our neighbors and the city of Plymouth.
Question 2 -
Due to the placement of the original: home on the lot, our options for an addition, specifically
relative to a garage, are limited. Since we are not the original owners of this property, we did
not contribute to the originaI/existing design (only a 2 car garage) and orientation on the
property (not easily allowing an addition) of this home_ In addition, we believe the proposed
addition would actually enhance the visual appeal of the property vs. its current state and would
not alter the character of the neighborhood on Troy Lane.
Question 3:
The requested variance has no economic considerations whatsoever.
Question 4:
As noted above, the 2 requested variances are minimal in nature and in no way would be
detrimental to the public welfare. Due to the size of our lot X1.12 acres), it would have no
impact on other land or improvements in the neighborhood.
Question 5:
The requested addition and associated variance would not impair light or air to other properties
in the neighborhood due to the size of our lot and setback off the property lines. Also, the
neighborhood is heavily treed, which already creates a natural barrier between the properties.
In addition, it would have no impact on the amount of traffic on Troy Lane (which is a private
road and dead end and therefore is not heavily travelled) or any safety considerations. Rather
than diminishing property values, we believe the addition would actually increase the value of
our property and, subsequently increase the value of the surrounding properties.
Question 6;
We have attempted to design the addition to have minimal impact on variances (48 square foot
amount of structure within the 50' setback with a closest point of 42.3 feet from the property
line)
Information specific to amount of impervious coverage within the property.
Property size: 1.12 acres (equal to 12,194 square feet)
Current amount of impervious coverage:
2,433 square feet -- existing house (including garage)
3,800 square feet — existing driveway/sidewalk
5,233 square feet total current impervious coverage
Impervious coverage, including addition (and new driveway):
3,300 square feet — house after addition (including garage)
3,800 square feet — existing driveway/sidewalk (portion of existing driveway will be removed
to accommodate new asphalt leading to relocated garage on top level)
1_,739 square feet — new driveway leading to tuck under
8,839 square feet — total iniperviaus coverage after addition
i3 -iTr • sy•� .#'S '+i � _ Q, i E� �1 �i r?' f'1 �'� ;� _j�' ..
y�' E'er. ,jai :+a •
• a i r�a�
OWN
- uk
PM -4
Op
jj
ir
/� �• r �f % '� 7. '1 ,� � F .A'y+ �'' f. ,$}moi �`y
-y• !. ate+
J F ' YJ Y i}�Y Lr•
.> 4n x'• ��`-r �
owl
.� r t �. ff� _ - yrs.: .�3.: ' i •' ' „T
_ S ;Lj' .f• ..,[t,y J ref. �- 'E•±�s, - .. yi
f i !. til � 11,-.' rr YI �,r �•�•;' yu,� "'�+►a. ,�,% r •
Y• �. -Wim '' ,. .r} ', �/
r�i .�l��. �S,r • �ra I 4 - ,�.: i, , k� 9-r� . . r
++ff + :�•_ .. �' f , .' yi n � , fr� +i -a -� :f r:.: F.,'•, :'��,y: �.-:�� i �' ►, iit .�! { � �, , ��± .
,' r;. 11�i. i !r .F._ y y.I��+Te /�_ ��... 't�; a"r�, as• !t'•�,��"�, `-•i3 '!,
' ��f� � .. •�: -. . ^ "' �� 11'{ / � r'� .� �� . r �� •' f r '� , ��"' • --_ �.yy�i' '+ i, 'Y. • � 'r '.��'pi. •3F.'r . �C�'�'
OL
.
X W�ll %
46 7
y
`41 'YaT�' � •air � b; �•4, 1. ry . 1 _ ,�, 4'1 •- .• r
'AsIR. s _
' - r �H+�• .° s'"� � r � � •: Y�i _ 5 :. �'' '`� , , ' ',' ` tri • J r.. � �� •-
pw
44
16
ej LTy �n l 1.�r '
+ f •}tJAif' �- 5 .. :.A �' �••-� � ',i- ? 1�•"rn "_l'- `� i
pt
7 7 -
tib` r ,;,.� ,,i���' `�� •i � . � i .'f •r �L�'�': ... •.
- I� r �k tl SIS . r [ T' � 4''Vi,�: '•},,,', , �,L y� � � ,r� Yp k S
• `�'ieac�4 �" 4 �,..• L I + •S.V: • y 1 •j.P.'•^ •,+S 1.' S4 [ I
ilCMY' �. Tp r• _ .. a •• r,•-. ]il 1 r
C.
•i + - - � � l��' �: : � r : :1]. �. Tri � ,
it •� I• '• 1 1 `
yt•,
! �' :a�
kt
' �� .. +-r •'�• •'1''t'I r'1 + lr it , '} •?}�
�7 • �' '�' •�. •� tilt � y �•4"sy. � . i [ ' � r L� ,.. r
fie
� r- • y I y! + I"•
.r,R •` � ` � � r1 i L,V'L R � r n Vii.•] � - J
►' _
pi
"�Y 1 l` tom' � '�1•'rr. J i
. � � � i �;ter, •, � ads � : � , :.
' VIII" �'�'I r.'. _ti• "••' `-�'.-. '"- �
.� .'� ..7- r. f - •fir � +k • h7��•�}...Z ..rri{ "
`.orf" +2'yF� ::. : rr��r, .. +...r. ,� : v.�T,-"'���+.r.r' ;,: •''' .. ' _ . •.1 +�,1
Vii: � y i� , y'••• -� * j � . P � I \y 1. r '�
"• � ' ��•,•. t 111 � i ,
't•, �_ . .+• :+? � ` . yam, F � _ _". . - - -__ -_ _ ' .sry�� y��
Jr.,
�� �•. fiAr I
l��� 1� L • ;�11? ti 1. .cy�, ,�.
r.,+'j.�, ,�Y` ., •.iib r .�lr 1 T
- rj
ti 'f •f4l. �• �Y �•%rx•iR4 /�.li� 'la: C'r �r� •,�
q•3p s :<e rte. �• �-r '•.6� 'i .. r .� .
'
i
1
i
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
WILLIAM REYNOLDS
IN TRACT B, RLS 854, AND GOVT, LOT 3, SEC, 30-118-22
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ZoiIo&2
RECEIVED
JUL 05 Znls
City Of P{ymeuth
� `- `, CvmmGni[�• ❑evelapment
N ea'�55e' w
56.OP y,•g1 war. a
ryn•A
e T5.99 ,ems _,•_ _ .unac w°'`ew ehsEuc�r
gg3'P23A'W 6C. 1
s _ $
-- fle-
3111 ��IryE•la�5g - '-
z
fl wne k 9.1'35'-0e' E
IBM
9 — --AS 854
5 Na1'�}5•� �3P,5ti
eeae pme�nw,eR �..tl. r,�rv. e�.�..w xkul
swnarze H.;�.ae..�c3rv,.a w. .�l..,,p.. c�... H•vail
daer;ear"'°.a+in'•irw°ie :`rte :.'•: ala
�.
Z. T— nava rr..Msc
x. oel w w1,/a1
Hwar��dw�w�idh#ro� diinl i4sar,xtl�ienl2�+f W iY
ronr..fny �.a Y u6 Pgwe 4�.e f.n.,. nnw Ys..sb10^ a.Y
Nre�.nl� �pwsrrtd 11 OrpiwaeUmvalMua
�atn..swn,4ti ae pen e'wa.nw{, r�ype,, e.c.w�errdwd
a,ee ely.� .rt;� a ZI �+w1aY4i1roea
'mMP.rt1++.dYd
4i Sw.,tb It YNw.
£
� sr w
1NIN'.. aa.a�rv,Iv ram.uw,�n.wgweNusVn. q rsq�-.'ntl r+��.
{,rq`a..r.a.-anr
M�vq be. w.4'+r drarrp�c..v+fe.wn,W
.r wN �n�sv,a�.�r Sen�CCrJ1a e�M `YN u000YM�vip�ae we^a,Y+Md • Wmuln..o m..wr
n.ee^iwrara•nYtie t•..,vuwyP.�r Inwr..>vrrleswsy Y�rr�
wiy.IN
r. ]l�v.�x. m1uvda nw -�� [ .*x.CMeetlrc+r .w
y
❑ Q 60 i2Q
J
�tlC.�Mv uF ,. pSvarv�rf
e.e��%,Fc-� pi e��".y enYab � A'iei.•b�r..n��
.er.rsi. [�i�.x lOR�.n..nn �+'+.ao +ane• �� RYVT+f^Ynpawq
SCALE IN FEET
GRONBERG F ASSOCIATES INC,
'+� �a� F� ��'�
CINL ENGINEERS, LAHp 3uRYEYpkB, uyp P,..1>iHEk$
�.o.
RAS N" WIlLOIY L1R1yE WmV LA%5. mN 56558
Wll'Z"
.•1
ANONE: 152 1 FAX- M477.4475
SO10NAEN=1 �311�3HOM Pue 1119 Asa` ~
of
N
u
C�7
F,
� J
U dF
n
a
pkte
S -
0 -
-o
�E
i
�^ ` \O
\� A
)| % !
MH !
»
7
& \
. y.y- ]
j
---
§ ------
-���
)
�P��mm ■�]:
�W
w�!
:
00
Ems;
/\`
Lu_
E
�
|||I|
!
.
a
�^ ` \O
\� A
»
7
& \
�
>
j
---
§ ------
-16
-�=�:�' ��=:: Viz:::;:,•
<\.
d ?
LL
n
� a
no
N°1
LL
a �
Qz•-
a fra
0—w
v�
I
41
egr
i
01