HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2006-439CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2006-439
APPROVING VARIANCES FOR HOLLY HAMILTON FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF A
NON -CONFORMING LOT, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND FRONT
SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10620 30TH AVENUE NORTH (2006097)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Holly Hamilton which requests approval of variances
for redevelopment of a non -conforming lot, impervious surface coverage, and front setback to
allow constriction of a new single-family home for property legally described as follows:
Lot 15, Auditors Subdivision No. 333, 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 Holly
Hamilton for variances for redevelopment of a non -conforming lot, impervious surface coverage,
and front setback to allow constriction of a new single-family home at 10620 30"' Avenue North,
subject to the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves variances to allow 1) redevelopment of an existing lot of record that
is non -conforming due to lot area and width; 2) impervious surface coverage of 36.4 percent;
and, 3) a front setback of 15.3 feet in accordance with the plans and materials received by the
City on September 21 and October 2, 2006, except as may be amended by this resolution,
with the findings that the applicable variance standards are met, as follows:
a. The subject lot is an existing non -conforming lot of record that was created prior to
modern zoning and subdivision regulations The applicant proposes to improve the
property by removing an existing single-family home originally built as a cabin and
subsequently constricting a new single-family home with a detached garage. The
Resolution 2006-439
(2006097)
Page 2
undersized nature of the lot with its shallow and narrow shape results in a need to exceed
the allowable impervious surface coverage and the front setback..
b. The circumstances related to this request are not generally applicable to other properties in
the RSF-1 district. The Auditors Subdivision 333 is unique due to its non -conforming lots
platted prior to modern zoning and subdivision regulations. These circumstances
established a lot configuration that does not readily serve the needs of present-day land
use, unless variances are granted..
c. The request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential. The
proposal would allow the applicant to build a new single-family home on this residentially
zoned lot, replacing a 1930's era cabin. The new home with its larger space would also
allow the applicant's mother to reside with her.
d. The hardship relating to the lot area and width was not created by the applicant, but rather
was created by the original platting of the lot in the 1940's. The difficulties relating to the
requested variances for impervious surface coverage and a small, narrow lot are a result of
factors beyond the applicant's control.
e. The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
neighborhood. Many lots in this neighborhood have a similar lot area and width and
exceed 25 percent impervious surface coverage.
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.
g. The request, including the applicant's proposal to reduce the amount of impervious
surface on the property, as well as showing two raingardens, is reasonable and strikes a
balance between allowing redevelopment to occur while preserving neighborhood
character and minimizing the extent of the variations needed to alleviate the hardship.
3. Separate demolition and building permits are required prior to any constriction activity on the
property.
4. Any changes or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance
provisions.
5. 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 November 14, 2006.
Resolution 2006-439
(2006097)
Page 3
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 November 14, 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