HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 03-16-1987 SpecialAGENDA
JOINT BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS/CITY COUNCIL
DINNER MEETING
MARCH 16, 1987
Dinner and Discussion
begin at: 5:30 P.M.
A. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Setbacks - how measured to easements or property lines
2. Granting of side yard setback Variances without showing of substantial
hardship
3. Should we consider aesthetics of building additions in granting Variances?
B. OTHER BUSINESS
Adjournment: 7:00 P.M.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: March 11, 1987
TO: Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals and City Council Members
FROM: Associate Planner Al Cottingham
SUBJECT SETBACK MEASUREMENTS
This item results from a February 19, 1987 letter from Larry Marofsky to ferry Sisk.
The issue was raised about setback measurements where easements are found along
property lines for sidewalks or other purposes.
Setbacks for all structures are measured from property lines and not from easement
lines. One factor that periodically comes up is that in Section 10, Subdivision C.,
Item 2 (a) 5 states: "When a future public street alignment and/or right-of-way width
is known, as indicated on the adopted City Thoroughfare Guide Plan, the front yard
setback of a proposed structure shall be measured from the known future right-of-way."
Another factor, and possible exception, is that buildings cannot encroach upon legal
easements; thus, to respect that, it may seem that the yard setback is measured from
the easement vs. the property lines - especially if the easement dimension exceeds the
ordinance setback dimension.
Attached are materials regarding a recent situation which is both interesting, in terms
of this subject, and unique in terms of actual experience. Chairman Marofsky was aware
of this situation when he raised his questions.
The City has traditionally accepted easements, vs. formal dedication, for sidewalks and
trails in the commercial and industrial areas. This allows developers to "use" the
full yard area, by measuring setbacks from the property line and to calculate ground
coverage on the full site. Formal dedication would reduce the size of the site and
relocate the property line.
LAW OFFICE
LAWRENCE P. MAROFSKY
BOULEVARD PLAZA OFFICE SUITES
7022 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55429
612-566-4570
February 19, 1987
Mr. Jerry Sisk
Plymouth City Council
City of Plymouth
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Planning and Board of Zoning
Dear Jerry:
In a recent discussion with Joe Ryan, in response to a
question I had raised about a property under construction, Joe
had advised me that the reason why the house looked so close to
the road was that the road was, in fact, constructed upon the
easement upon the property, and not on a dedicated roadway.
The staff, using existing ordinances, had interpreted
the ordinance as providing that the setback went from the edge of
the existing roadway, which after our discussion, Mr. Ryan and I
agreed that this raised a whole spectrum of potential problems.
If an individual grants an easement for roadway instead of dedi-
cating roadway to the City, and the City then considers that
easement area as being "their property", that would have an
effect on their front yard setback, reducing their front yard
setback accordingly. It would obviously be possible for a person
to grant a 25' easement and have only a 10' setback from the
roadbed."
With the City taking easements for sidewalks or other
purposes, do these easements reduce the setbacks or do the set-
backs start at the edge of the easement area?
The Board of Zoning continues to be concerned with the
tvariancesgiveniideyardsforpropertieswhichmaynothave
substantialy hardips. The most recent appeal has concerned
several of our members. They point out that the driveway slope
met national standards and that there are many other properties
in the city with similar slopes. I believe that a discussion of
revisions setting forth slope and parking requirements on single
family 11,9 in order.
lor5 may L
Yours truly,
Lawrence P. Marofsky
LPM:bb
Telephone 827-8123
Area Code 612
Law Offices of
OCT DENNIS L. PETERSON
Lake Calhoun Professional Building
R '
3109 Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
22 October 1986
Mr. Joe Ryan
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Lot 7, Block 1, Rappaport Addition
Dear Mr. Ryan:
James Patsch Construction, Inc., has asked me to review the
regulations relating to setback requirements for the proposed
dwelling on the above property. My review of the appropriate
ordinances indicates that the setback requirement extends from
the lot line and not the easement. Section 4, Subdivision B,
defines Yard Depth as: "The horizontal distance between the
line of a building and the street or alley right of way where
one exists; otherwise a lot line. Applying other definitions
found in Section 4, Subdivision B to the above definition, it is
clear that the lot line is located where the lot abates a
street.
The setback requirements are logically from the lot line and
not from the easement. If a setback was required from all
easements, this lot and many other lots would be unbuildable.
Any setback requirement from the curb line is made greater
due to the curb being placed on the lot outside of the
easement. This, however, will not present any problem if you
agree with my conclusions that the setback is measured from the
lot line and not the easement.
If you have any questions or wish additional information,
please call me.
ru ours,
Dennis L. Peterson
Attorney at Law
DLP:r
s
r{
4'
November 3, 1986
CITY OF
PLYMOUTH+
Law Offices of Dennis L. Peterson
Lake Calhoun Professional Building
3109 Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, Mn 55408
RE: LOT 7 BLOCK 1 RAPPAPORT ADDITION, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA
Dear Mr. Peterson:
I received your letter dated October 22, 1986 regarding the above referenced
property.
I agree with your statement that setback requirements are logically measured from the
lot line. The Plymouth Zoning Ordinance defines a lot line as "The lot boundary
limits. When a lot line abuts a street, avenue, park or other public property, except
an alley, such line shall be known as a street line, and when a lot line abuts an
alley, it shall be known as an alley line."
The Zoning Ordinance also defines a front lot line as "That boundary of a lot which
abuts an existing or public street."
I have researched our files and was able to obtain information regarding the 30 foot
roadway easement. It appears as though sometime before the final platting of the
development, it became apparent that if a bubble for a cul-de-sac was required, it
would make the lot unbuildable and set the proposed home on a very steep hill;
therefore, the developer was required to provide for the 30 foot roadway easement.
It appears that the intent at that time would be such that the front yard setback
would be measured from the lot line, and not the street right-of-way line or street
curb line.
Taking this into account, the minimum front yard setback for this property will be
measured from the lot line as indicated on the Certificate of Survey submitted to our
office by Mr. James Patsch.
Please contact me at 559-2800 should you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Joe Ryan
Building Official
cc: File
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
PLYMUUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 10, Subdivision C
5) A site plan of the proposed building shall be submitted along with the
application for Conditional Use Permit. Such site plan shall show the
location and extent of the proposed building, parking, loading, access
drives landscaping and any other improvements. Upon consideration by
the Planning Commission and subsequent approval by the City Council said
site plan shall be attached to and become a part of the Conditional Use
Permit. Any substantial change to the site plan shall require a resub-
mission to the Planning Commission and subsequent approval by the City
Council.
6) The provision of subparagraph (2), (3) and (4) above, may be waived by
the City Council, in whole or in part, upon a finding that such a waiver
would not have a deleterious effect upon surrounding properties.
e. The following State of Minnesota Code of Agency Rules, Department of Trans-
portation, Aeronautics Division are hereby adopted by reference: 14 MCAR Sec-
tion 1.3015 (Criteria for Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation) and 14
MCAR Section 1.3018 (Seaplane Operations within the Seven County Metropolitan
Area). These regulations apply to the City of Plymouth due to the classifi-
cation of Medicine Lake and Schmidt Lake for seaplane operations. All
developments involving structures of a height governed by these regulations
shall be subject to the requirements of those regulations as if they were part
of this Ordinance. (Amended by Ord. No. 82-08)
2. Yard Regulations:
a. Measurements shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building
to the lot line in question, subject to the following qualifications:
1) Cornices, canopies, or eaves may extend into the required front yard a
distance not exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches.
2) Fire escapes may extend into the required front yard a distance not
exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches.
3) A landing place or uncovered porch may extend into the required front
yard a distance not exceeding six (6) feet, if the landing place or
porch has its floor no higher than the entrance floor of the building.
An open railing may be placed around such place.
4) The above enumerated architectural features may also extend into any
side or rear yard to the same extent, except that no porch, terrace, or
outside stairway shall project into the required side yard distance.
5) When a future public street alignment and/or right-of-way width is
known, as indicated on the adopted City Thoroughfare Guide Plan, the
front yard setback(s) of a proposed structure shall be measured from the
known future right-of-way.
N.89 38 04 E. _ _ _ 929.5
Drainage and Utility Easement
I
130
I
I i
I I WY
F
I
12.0 16.0 I
h
I923.8
4
t.o 43.01,425.5 I o
o I
JI 2.0 130,
PROPOSED
M DWELLING 930.1 1 I d
r N 2o.0 35.00 ; Z
0 0
8.33
GAR. z
17.55 9.34 u' 6.33 N
920.° 924.5 930.5
922 I
922.7 I.0 __35.16 9322
929.1 — -- '
W
Z
BEARIM
ARE A
a
LOW Spot w 41
I
v
1DrainageV30. and Uti/qtyT1 Easement o ----
II 02 ----------
ST
1 Curb Ln
1 N N
I
I'M 117 930 44
I
JOB NO.861B2
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: March 11, 1987
TO: Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals and City Council Members
FROM: Associate Planner Al Cottingham
SUBJECT VARIANCES FOR SIDE YARD SETBACKS
Mr. Marofsky also raised the issue in his letter to Council Member Sisk, about the
Board's concern for variances being granted to sideyard setbacks for properties which
may not have substantial hardship. The most recent request like this was the Louis
Cosentino application.
The Board noted that the driveway slope met the national standards and that many other
properties in the City with similar slopes were identified. It is Mr. Marofsky's
opinion that discussion as to revisions setting forth slope and parking requirements on
single family lots may be in order.
LAW OFFICE
LAWRENCE P. MAROFSKY
BOULEVARD PLAZA OFFICE SUITES
7022 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55429
612-566-4570
February 19, 1987
Mr. Jerry Sisk
Plymouth City Council
City of Plymouth
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Planning and Board of Zoning
Dear Jerry:
In a recent discussion with Joe Ryan, in response to a
question I had raised about a property under construction, Joe
had advised me that the reason why the house looked so close to
the road was that the road was, in fact, constructed upon the
easement upon the property, and not on a dedicated roadway.
The staff, using existing ordinances, had interpreted
the ordinance as providing that the setback went from the edge of
the existing roadway, which after our discussion, Mr. Ryan and I
agreed that this raised a whole spectrum of potential problems.
If an individual grants an easement for roadway instead of dedi-
cating roadway to the City, and the City then considers that
easement area as being "their property", that would have an
effect on their front yard setback, reducing their front yard
setback accordingly. It would obviously be possible for a person
to grant a 25' easement and have only a 10' setback from the
roadbed."
With the City taking easements for sidewalks or other
purposes, do these easements reduce the setbacks or do the set-
backs start at the edge of the easement area?
The Board of Zoning continues to be concerned with the
variances given iide yards for properties which may not have
substantialy hards ips. The most recent appeal has concerned
several of our members. They point out that the driveway slope
met national standards and that there are many other properties
in the city with similar slopes. I believe that a discussion of
revisions setting forth slope and parking requirements on single
family in order.
1cT5 M-7 Ix -
Yours truly,
i
Lawrence P. Marofsky
LPM:bb
3.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800
MEMO
DATE: March 11, 1987
TO: Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals and City Council Members
FROM: Associate Planner Al Cottingham
SUBJECT AESTHETICS OF BUILDING ADDITIONS IN DETERMINING VARIANCES
The Board has wrestled with the problem of building addition aesthetics; and, what role
they play in granting variances. The Board has typically required the petitioner's
building addition to be compatible with the existing home, as part of their discussion
and approvals. The Board is seeking direction from the Council as to whether or not
this should be continued.
Attached is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance section which sets the basis for special
conditions.
Plymouth ordinances do not have specific architectural or aesthetic standards. The
City has historically left that to the market. Compliance with zoning and building
code standards has been the extent of established criteria.
The Planning Commission, the Board, and the Council have, over time, exercised some
architectural regulation through the plan approval process.
Staff concern is that, if formal direction and standards are deemed necessary, the
matter should be carefully examined as to administrative, legal, and policy aspects.
Standards should be well defined and known "up front".
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 11, Subdivision C
6) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the con-
gestion 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.
3. Application and Procedure:
a. Application for the Adjustments and Appeals permitted under the pro-
visions of this Section shall be in writing and made to the Zoning Admin-
istrator. The application shall include the following:
1) A completed application form provided by the City and the fee estab-
lished by City Code, in addition to the required Building Permit fee,
if any.
2) A written description of the request for the adjustment or the appeal,
including an explanation of compliance with the variance criteria set
forth in this Section.
3) Supporting materials determined by the Zoning Administrator to be
necessary for the complete and clear definition and understanding of
the request. Such materials include, but are not limited to, the fol-
lowing: maps, certified surveys, building plans, plat plans and other
narrative materials.
b. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Zoning Administrator shall
establish a time and place for a hearing before the Board. At least ten
days before the date of the hearing, a written Notice of Hearing shall be
mailed to the applicant and to all other persons who, in the judgment of
the Zoning Administrator, may be affected by the decision of the Board.
The Zoning Administrator shall provide a copy of the application and
related materials to the Board prior to the scheduled meeting.
c. The Board shall consider the application at the scheduled hearing in ac-
cordance with rules and procedures for such hearings as established by the
Board. The Board shall make its final Order on the application within
thirty days of the hearing.
d. In granting any adjustment or variance under the provisions of this Sub-
division, the Board shall designate such conditions in connection
therewith as will, in its opinion, secure substantially the objectives of
the regulations or provision to which the adjustment or variance is
granted, as to light, air, and the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience and general welfare.
11-10