Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2008-112CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2008-112 APPROVING VARIANCES FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE FOR TITUS MHIRIPIRI FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2422 HEMLOCK LANE NORTH (2008008) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Titus Mhiripiri for a side yard setback variance and impervious surface coverage variance to allow constriction of a new home for property legally described as follows: That part of Lot 20, Block 1, Elmhurst according to the plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the most westerly corner of Lot 20; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line thereof to the most southerly corner thereof, thence northeasterly 149 feet along the southeasterly line of said Lot; thence northwesterly to a point in the northwesterly line thereof, distant 152 feet northeasterly from the point of beginning; thence southwesterly 152 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called public meeting and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Titus Mhiripiri for a side yard setback variance and impervious surface coverage variance to allow constriction of a new home at 2422 Hemlock Lane North, subject to the following conditions: 1. This resolution approves a 6 -foot side setback variance and a shoreland variance to allow 30.6 percent impervious surface coverage to allow the constriction of a new home, in accordance with the application received by the City on February 1, 2008, revised plans received on March 7, 2008, and revised site plan received on March 31, 2008, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The variances for side setback and impervious surface coverage are approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically: Resolution 2008-112 (2008008) Page 2 of 3 a) The subject lot is an existing lot of record that was created prior to modern zoning and subdivision regulations. The lot is shallow and narrow and except for the setback variance, the applicant is proposing to place the home at setbacks consistent with the neighboring homes, which results in a site plan that exceeds the allowable lot coverage. Without the variances, the lot could not be redeveloped in a manner in keeping with the established neighborhood character. b) The circumstances related to this request are not generally applicable to other properties in the RSF-3 district. This lot and all of the neighboring lots are non -conforming. The original platting established a lot configuration that does not serve the needs of present day land use, unless variances are granted. The setback variance would allow two living areas to be set back two feet closer to the side property line than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance. The living area behind the garage would share the same exterior wall as the garage and would not appear different from a typical garage. The majority of living space above the above the garage would comply with the setback requirement. c) The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income potential. The existing home on the property is 931 square feet and was constricted in 1920. The size of the existing home is substantially less than current average home sizes. d) The conditions relating to the hardship were not created by the applicant, but rather were created by the original platting of the lot in the early 1900's. The applicant purchased the property in 2007. The applicant would decrease the impervious surface on the lot and would utilize a best management practice to treat surface water on their property. e) The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the neighborhood. Many lots in this neighborhood are smaller sized, have similar setbacks, and exceed 25 percent impervious surface coverage. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing house, which is currently non -conforming to the setback requirements along the north side property line (four -foot side yard setback) to allow a new home on the property. Additionally, the size, location and style of the proposed home would be compatible with the neighborhood. f) The proposal would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or diminish property values within the neighborhood. The proposed home would meet or exceed all setback requirements for homes located in the RSF-3 zoning district. g) The variance request is reasonable based upon the unique conditions of the parcel, and strikes a balance between allowing a redevelopment of the property to occur while minimizing the extent of the variation needed to alleviate the hardship. Resolution 2008-112 (2008008) Page 3 of 3 3. Building permits are required prior to demolition of the existing structures and prior to construction of the new home. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City, a certified survey for the proposed home with the impervious surface area calculation for the property and the drainage plan showing silt fence locations on the survey. b. Revise walls out floor plan to remove the patio from the plan. c. Silt fence shall be installed on the property according to the certified survey. 5. Adjacent paved streets shall be kept free of mud, sand, and silt as a result of constriction. 6. The addition shall comply with all standards specified for the RSF-3 (Residential Single Family Detached 3) zoning district. No variances other than side setback and impervious surface are granted or implied. 7. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. 8. This variance approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has substantially started constriction of the project, or unless the landowner or applicant 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. ADOPTED by the City Council on April 8, 2008. 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 April 8, 2008, 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