HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2006-387CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2006-387
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DETACHED GARAGE IN A FRONT YARD
FOR IGNACIO ALARCON POLANIA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 940 GARLAND
LANE NORTH (2006084)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Ignacio Alarcon Polania, which requests approval of
a variance to allow a 24 -foot by 30 -foot detached garage in a front yard for property legally
described as follows:
Lot 6, Block 3, City View Acres Second Unit, 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 Ignacio
Alarcon Polania for a variance to allow a detached garage in a front yard for property located at
940 Garland Lane North, subject to the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves a variance to permit a 24 -foot by 30 -foot detached garage in a front
yard in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on August 15, 2006,
and revised plans received on September 11, 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 applicant's lot is 85 feet wide and the home was constricted
in the center of the lot. Therefore, there is not sufficient space in either side yard for an
attached or detached garage. Currently, the only place the applicant could constrict an
accessory stricture without a variance is in the east (rear) yard area, between the home
Resolution 2006-387
(2006084)
Page 2
and Gleason Lake. However, this area of the lot slopes down to the lake and would
require a significant amount of fill to raise the elevation of the lot. Placement of a
detached garage in the rear yard would require a long driveway, which would increase the
amount of impervious surface coverage on the property, which could have a negative
impact on Gleason Lake.
b) The subject property is narrow and long, with the home centered on the lot. The property
was originally designed and constricted for the garage space to be detached, thereby
making constriction of an attached garage to the front of the home impractical. The
majority of residential properties in the RSF-1 zoning classification do not share this same
condition.
Staff also finds that the applicant could rebuild the existing one -car detached garage in the
front yard without the need for a variance. However, a larger garage is requested to
provide additional storage space. The larger variance would also justify the cost of
reconstruction.
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 three -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 two windows to the side of the garage that
would face Garland Lane to improve the appearance.
d) The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance and has not been self-created. The
existing home was constricted in the center on the lot with a detached garage in front of
the home. This condition was not created by the applicants as the home was constricted
in 1969 and the applicants purchased the home in 2002.
e) The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land in the neighborhood. The applicant would remove the existing detached
garage, which is located three feet from the side (south) lot line and constrict a new
detached garage seven feet from the side (south) lot line. The neighboring homes on each
side of the subject property have garages in the same general area on their properties.
Therefore, the proposed detached garage would be consistent with the surrounding
properties.
Resolution 2006-387
(2006084)
Page 3
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 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.
3. Prior to demolition of the existing 2arne and prior to construction of the new 2arne,
the applicant shall obtain appropriate building permits.
4. Property irons adiacent to proposed construction shall be located and exposed prior to
building permit issuance.
5. Prior to building permit final inspection, the applicant shall remove the existing driveway and
slab located the former garage. The existing driveway and slab area shall be restored back to
a pervious surface.
6. The applicant shall constrict the garage addition to be consistent with the character of the
home with matching building materials and color.
7. The applicant's garage shall have two windows on the side of the building that faces Garland
Lane North.
8. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per
Ordinance provisions.
9. 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 October 10, 2006.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS.
Resolution 2006-387
(2006084)
Page 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 10, 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