HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2003-214CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2003-214
APPROVING VARIANCES FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF AN UNDERSIZED LOT TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 2344 IVES LANE
NORTH (200303 1)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Kevin and Rebecca Pfeiffer which requests approval
of variances to allow redevelopment of an undersized lot to permit construction of a new home
for property legally described as follows:
The west Half of Lot 8, Block 2, Elmhurst, 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 Kevin
and Rebecca Pfeiffer for variances to allow redevelopment of an undersized lot to allow
construction of a new single-family home at 2344 Ives Lane North, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This resolution approves variances to allow development of an undersized lot, in accordance
with the plans and application received by the City on March 20, 2003 and revisions submitted
on April 10, 2003, except as amended by this resolution.
2. The variances for undersized lot is approved with the finding that the applicable variance
standards are met. Specifically:
(a) The subject lot is an existing lot of record created prior to modern zoning and subdivision
regulations. The applicant is proposing to make the best use of the property by
constructing a new, modest -sized home. Without granting of the variances, the lot could
not be redeveloped in a reasonable manner.
Resolution 2003-214
(2003031)
Page 2 of 3
(b) The circumstances related to this request are not generally applicable to other properties in
the RSF-3 district. The Elmhurst neighborhood is unique due to its several non-
conforming lots that were originally platted in the early 1900's, prior to modern zoning
and subdivision regulations. Although the City rezoned this neighborhood from RSF-2 to
RSF-3 as a means to help preserve the neighborhood, the rezoning was implemented with
the recognition that some of the lots in the neighborhood would continue to be
nonconforming. The original platting established a lot configuration that does not 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 home on a lot that is vacant due to a
demolition of a condemned house.
(d) The conditions relating to the hardship were not created by the applicant, but rather were
created by the original platting of the lot in the 1900's.
(e) The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
neighborhood. Many lots in this neighborhood are similarly -sized and would require
variances to build a new home. In addition, the size and style of the proposed home would
be compatible with the neighborhood.
(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. This proposal would be an improvement to the lot and neighborhood
because a new single-family home could be constructed on the lot.
(g) The request is reasonable and strikes a balance between allowing redevelopment to occur
while minimizing the extent of the variations needed to alleviate the hardship. The
proposal meets all setback and impervious surface requirements. The variances requested
are beyond the control of the applicant as the lot was platted prior to the applicant's
involvement with the property.
3. The building setback and height requirements are as stated in the RSF-3 (Residential Single
Family Detached 3) zoning district. No variances are approved or implied.
4. The maximum impervious surface allowed on the lot is 25 percent.
5. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per
Ordinance provisions.
Resolution 2003-214
(2003031)
Page 3 of 3
6. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or
applicant has substantially started construction 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 21030.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Adopted by the City Council on May 13, 2003.
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 May 13, 2003, 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