HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2004-211CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2004-211
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING IN THE FRONT
YARD AT 210 VICKSBURG LANE. (2004040)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Richard and Carole Korby for a variance to allow an
existing shed to remain in the front yard at 210 Vicksburg Lane, for property legally described as
follows:
Lot 1, Block 2, Plymouth Manor 2"a 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 by Richard
and Carole Korby for a variance to allow an existing shed in the front yard at 210 Vicksburg
Lane, subject to the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves a variance to allow an existing shed in the front yard at 210
Vicksburg Lane, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on April
12, 2004, except as amended by this resolution.
2. The variances are approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards are met.
Specifically:
(a) The property is unique as it is a corner lot with a limited area in which an accessory
building could be located. As the property is considered to have two front yards, the shed
is not permitted in either front yard. In this case, the areas in which the shed is permitted,
the east and south yards, are not suitable due to factors such as existing mature trees,
shrubs, and the fenced backyard. Without the variance, the applicant would not be able
to locate the shed in an accessible location.
Resolution 2004-211
(2004033)
Page 2 of 3
(b) The corner lot and existing conditions that limit the area in which the applicant could place
a shed are unique to this parcel. The location of the shed was chosen by the applicant as
it is the only area which allows adequate room to maneuver around the shed.
(c) The request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential of the
property. The proposal would allow the existing shed to remain for the storage needs of
the property owner.
(d) The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance and has not been self-created. The
location on a corner lot with limited area for a shed creates a hardship for the property
owner to locate any accessory building on the property.
(e) The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The 8' x 10' shed meets the maximum
height, size, and building materials requirements of the ordinance and does not detract
from the appearance of the home or surrounding properties. In addition, the front yard
setbacks to the shed exceed requirements for a primary stricture and are comparable to
the front yard setbacks of the adjacent homes.
(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 is the minimum action necessary to eliminate the hardship. The
shed is modest in size (8' x 10') and is located close to the home. Although there is no
front yard setback requirement in the ordinance for accessory buildings, the shed exceeds
the ordinance requirements for setback to a principal stricture.
3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per
Ordinance provisions.
4. 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 June 8, 2004.
Resolution 2004-211
(2004033)
Page 3 of 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 June 8, 2004, 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