HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2008-301CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2008-301
APPROVING VARIANCES FOR SIDE -YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACK AND
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE FOR JASON BEVER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 2740 LARCH LANE NORTH (2008091)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by JP and Co. for side -yard and rear -yard setback
variances and an impervious surface coverage variance to allow constriction of a new home and
detached garage for property legally described as follows:
Lot 26, Block 3, Elmhurst Lakeview, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
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 JP and
Co. for side -yard and rear -yard setback variances and an impervious surface coverage variance to
allow constriction of a new home and detached garage at 2740 Larch Lane North, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This resolution approves a 6 -foot side yard setback variance to living space, three-foot side -
yard and rear -yard setback variances to a detached garage, and a shoreland variance to allow
49.2 percent impervious surface coverage to allow the constriction of a new home and
detached garage, in accordance with the application received by the City on September 4,
2008, and revised survey received on September 23, 2008, except as amended by this
resolution.
2. The variances for side and rear yard setback and impervious surface coverage are approved
with the finding that the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically:
a) The circumstances related to this request are not generally applicable to other properties in
the RSF-2 district. The property is 6,300 square feet, where 12,500 -square feet is the
minimum lot area requirement in the RSF-2 district. This lot and many of the
neighboring lots are non -conforming. Additionally, the lot is 50 -feet wide, where 80 feet
Resolution 2008-301
(2008091)
Page 2 of 4
is the minimum lot width requirement. The original platting established a lot
configuration that does not serve the needs of present day land use, unless variances are
granted.
The neighboring house to the south has a 41 -foot side yard setback to the shared side lot
line. Therefore, there would be 47 feet of separation between the two homes which is a
greater separation than the 20 feet (between houses) envisioned with the RSF-2 district.
The neighboring lot to the south is roughly 18,900 -square feet in area and 150 feet wide.
Therefore, if the neighboring house were redeveloped, there would be space for large side
yards, which would maintain separation between the homes.
The proposed garage and driveway are located over the existing driveway. The
neighboring lot to the east has a detached building that is three feet from the shared rear
lot line. The applicant is proposing to place the new garage to back up to the neighbor's
detached building.
b) The requested variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase land value or
income potential of the property, but to accommodate the redevelopment of a home that
was built in 1920.
c) 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 2004. The applicant would decrease the impervious surface on the lot and
would utilize a best management practice to treat surface water on their property.
d) The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
neighborhood. Many lots in this neighborhood are smaller sized and have similar setbacks,
include detached garages behind the homes, and exceed 25 percent impervious surface
coverage. Additionally, the size, location and style of the new house would be compatible
with the neighborhood. The house would be a two-story with modest height that would
be compatible with the existing houses in the neighborhood, which are a mix of ramblers,
split-levels, story and one half, and modest two-story houses.
e) The variance request is reasonable based upon the unique conditions of the smaller sized
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.
3. Building permits are required prior to demolition of the existing structures and prior to
construction of the new home.
Resolution 2008-301
(2008091)
Page 3 of 4
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the new home or 2ara2e:
a. The existing home and garage shall be removed.
b. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City, a revised certified survey
for the property with a drainage and best management practice plan that: 1) shows no
drainage impact to neighboring properties; 2) identifies the location of silt fence; and 3)
identifies the locations of the rain gutter and related drain fields.
c. Silt fence shall be installed on the property according to the certified survey.
d. The existing house does not have a basement. The applicant shall verify that the existing
sewer service is deep enough to serve the proposed basement. If it is not deep enough, an
ejector pump will be required.
5. Constriction traffic is not allowed in the right-of-way during the City street reconstruction
project.
6. Any damage to the street or curb shall be repaired or replaced by the owner at the discretion
of the City Engineer.
7. The addition shall comply with all standards specified for the RSF-2 (Residential Single
Family Detached 2) zoning district. No variances other than side setback to living space, the
side and rear setback to the detached garage, and impervious surface are granted or implied.
8. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per
Ordinance provisions.
9. 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 October 14, 2008.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS.
Resolution 2008-301
(2008091)
Page 4 of 4
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 October 14, 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