HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2007-176CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2007-176
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 20 -FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK
WHERE 25 FEET IS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
APPROXIMATELY 118 SQUARE FOOT ROOM ADDITION FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 15655 40TH AVENUE NORTH (2007032)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Patricia Zalaznik and John Gorman, which
requests approval of a five-foot setback variance to permit constriction of a home
addition for property legally described as follows:
Lot 11, Block 12, Plymouth Creek 2" a Addition, 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 Patricia Zalaznik and John Gorman for a setback variance to allow
constriction of a home addition for property located at 15655 40t1' Avenue North, subject
to the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves a variance to allow a 20 -foot rear yard setback where 25 is
required, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on March
21, 2007 and information received on April 4, 2007, except as amended by this
resolution.
2. The 11.66 -foot by 10.08 -foot addition shall be finished to match the existing home.
3. The setback variance is approved with the finding that the applicable variance
standards are met. Specifically:
Resolution 2007-176
(2007032)
Page 2
a. The subject property is an interior unit of a four -unit town home building, which
limits expansion options.
b. The applicant's home was constricted in 1983 and was originally part of a
planned unit development (PUD). Because it was part of a PUD, setbacks and
other design guidelines were approved based upon a plan different from those in
the current RMF -1 zoning district.
c. The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income
potential of the property; but rather, would allow all living functions to be located
on the main floor of the home.
d. The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance and has not been self-created.
The existing home was constricted as part of a PUD, not according to the
setbacks established in the current RMF -1 zoning district.
e. Granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed
addition would not be visible from the neighboring properties to the north or east.
The proposed addition would be identical to an existing room addition directly to
the east. Because the room additions would be the same in area, roofline and
share a common wall, the view from the west would not change. The closest
property to the south is over 150 feet away.
f. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor would it substantially increase the congestion of the public streets,
or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
g. The room addition is modest in size and represents the minimum action necessary
to alleviate the hardship. The room addition would also match an addition
directly to the east.
4. A building permit for the addition shall be obtained prior to construction.
5. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals
per Ordinance provisions.
6. This 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 21030.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Resolution 2007-176
(2007032)
Page 3
Adopted by the City Council on April 24, 2007.
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 24, 2007, 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