Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2005-360CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2005-360 APPROVING VARIANCES FOR FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR RYLAND HOMES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5106-5128 YUMA LANE NORTH (2005090) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Ryland Homes which requests approval of variances for a 21 -foot front yard and a 37.5 -foot rear yard setback for property legally described as follows: Lots 11-16, Block 2, The Fields of Nanterre Second 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 variance request for a 21 -foot front yard setback and a 37.5 foot rear yard setback for a six -unit townhouse stricture for property located at 5106-5128 Yuma Lane North, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The variances requested to permit a 21 -foot front yard setback and a 37.5 -foot rear yard setback (with a one -foot roof overhang) are hereby approved in accordance with the application and plans received by the City on July 12, 2005, except as amended by this resolution. 2. This resolution is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards have been met. Specifically: a) The lots are legally created and the City must allow reasonable use. Therefore, the hardship is related to the circumstances of platting. Because requiring the developer to Resolution 2005-360 (2005090) Page 2 substitute another unit type in this area would create an incompatibility with the rest of the Field of Nanterre development, the style of the proposed dwelling units are the logical choice for the Lots 11-16. b) The conditions are unique to this particular lot and would not apply to other properties currently zoned RMF -2. The applicant explored replatting the property to adjust the lot lines and build the stricture constricted fiirther south, but due to other setbacks, replatting would not solve the existing setback issue without creating others. c) The request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential beyond that originally approved. d) The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the neighborhood. The building corner will not be out of character with the rest of the development. This is the only building within the Fields of Nanterre development that backs up to Vicksburg Lane. The City's in -ground drinking water reservoir is currently under constriction to the south, so no other dwellings will be constricted in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the landscaping plan shows 18 conifers planted between the stricture and Vicksburg Lane. e) 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. f) The applicant could constrict another unit typically used as an interior lot or otherwise reduce the floor plan of the building to reduce the length of the dwelling by an additional two feet. With this modification, the request is reasonable and strikes a balance between allowing reasonable use of the lot with preserving a usable back yard area. 4. A building permit for the stricture shall be obtained prior to constriction. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise their plans to reduce the length of the dwelling on Lot 16 by at least two feet. 6. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the applicant has substantially started constriction of the project, or unless the 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 September 27, 2005 Resolution 2005-360 (2005090) 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 September 27, 2005, 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