Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2006-268CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2006-268 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DETACHED GARAGE IN A FRONT YARD FOR MINNEAPOLIS GARAGE CONSTRUCTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2615 SYCAMORE LANE NORTH (2006043) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Minneapolis Garage Constriction, which requests approval of a variance to allow a 22 -foot by 24 -foot detached garage in a front yard for property legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Creekwood Heights lit 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 Minneapolis Garage Constriction for a variance to allow a detached garage in a front yard for property located at 2615 Sycamore Lane North, subject to the following conditions: 1. This resolution approves a variance to permit a 22 -foot by 24 -foot detached garage in a front yard in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on May 25, 2006, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The variance is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically: a) The physical surroundings of the property create a unique hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. The Zoning Ordinance defines each yard that abuts a public street as a "front' yard. Consequently, the applicant has two front yards. Resolution 2006-268 (2006043) Page 2 The applicant's home was also constricted closer to the north side lot line. If the home were centered on the lot there would have been enough side yard area to constrict the garage. Currently, the only place the applicant could constrict an accessory stricture without a variance is in the west (side) yard area, between the home and Plymouth Creek. However, this area of the lot slopes down to the creek and would require a significant amount of fill to raise the elevation of the lot. If the applicant constricted a garage in this location, the garage and related fill could have a negative impact on Plymouth Creek. b) The subject property fronts on two public streets. The majority of residential properties in the RSF-1 zoning classification do not share this same condition. Staff finds that the location of the home north -center on the lot is not typical and if the home had been centered on the lot, the applicant would have enough side yard area to build a detached garage without a variance. c) The purpose of the variance is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the property. The proposal would allow the addition of a two -stall detached garage to provide improved storage space for the owners, and would not detract form the appearance of the home or surrounding properties. The applicant is proposing to constrict the garage addition with materials and design compatible with the exterior of the home. The applicant is also proposing to add a window to the side of the garage that would face 26"' Avenue North to improve the appearance. d) The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance and has not been self-created. The existing home was constricted off -center on the lot with the garage on the north end of the home. This condition was not created by the applicants as the home was constricted in 1962 and the applicants purchased the home in 2005. e) The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land in the neighborhood because the applicant would locate the building in the southwest portion of the lot. The closest home to this garage is the neighboring home to the north, which would be roughly 110 feet away. The neighboring home also fronts on Sycamore Lane and the applicant's proposed garage would have access from the existing driveway connecting to 26"' Avenue North. 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. f) The requested variance does appear to be the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. The applicant would constrict the detached garage to meet the same setback requirements that would be required for the principal stricture. Resolution 2006-268 (2006043) Page 3 3. Prior to constriction, the applicant shall obtain a building permit. 4. Property irons adjacent to proposed constriction shall be located and exposed prior to building permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall constrict the garage addition to be consistent with the character of the home with matching building materials and color. 6. The applicant's garage shall have two windows on the side of the building that faces 26"' Avenue North. 7. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. 8. 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 2 103 0. 06 of the Zoning Ordinance. ADOPTED by the City Council on July 5, 2006. 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 July 5, 2006 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