HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2002-527CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2002-527
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ZERO SETBACK FROM THE BUILDING TO
PARKING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9625 36TH AVENUE NORTH. (2002128)
WHEREAS, Ram Electric has requested approval of a variance to allow zero setback from the
building to parking, for property legally described as:
Lots 1 and 2, Glen Erie Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said 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 Ram
Electric for approval of a variance for parking setback, subject to the following conditions:
1. A variance is approved to allow zero setback from the building to parking where 10 feet is
required by the Ordinance, according to the plans received by the City on October 28,
2002, except as amended by this resolution.
2. The parking spaces shall be striped in conformance with the parking standards in Section
21135.07 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. A variance is approved to allow zero setback to parking, where 10 feet is the minimum
setback specified by the Zoning Ordinance, based on the finding that:
a) The existing conditions of the property result in a particular hardship to the owner, if
the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. The location of the building
centered on the lot leaves two small parking areas on each end of the building, which
Resolution 2002-527
File No. 2002106
Page 2
limits the amount of land available to meet the parking setbacks. The paved area on
the north and east sides of the building are approximately 40 feet Nvide, which does not
allow adequate room for parking and a drive aisle Nvith the required 20 -foot parking
setback.
b) The conditions for the variance are unique as the property is undersized and has a very
limited area in which to construct additional parking. The lot is less than one acre,
which is the minimum lot area allowed in the C-5 zoning district. Requiring the
parking setback would not allow the applicant to make improvements to the parking
on the site. The property is also unique as it is currently paved directly fi-om the
property line to the building, Nvith the exception of the landscape medians. Therefore,
allowing the variance would make little difference to the appearance of the property.
c) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the parcel of land. The variance request is necessary to
improve the parking arrangement of the site and to provide parking for the existing
and proposed businesses.
d) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Chapter and has not been
created by any persons having an interest in the parcel of land and is not a self-created
hardship. The circumstances surrounding the variance request were not self-created.
The conditions were created by previous owners.
e) That the granting of the variation Nvill not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of
land is located.
fl The proposed improvements would not impair an adequate supple of light and air to
adjacent property, endanger public safety, increase congestion of the public streets,
increase the danger of fire or substantially diminish property values in the
neighborhood. The variance would improve the safety of the site as there is currently
no orderly parking arrangement.
g) The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
Without approval of the variance, no additional parking could be provided.
4. Separate building permits are required for any interior building modifications.
5. Signage shall comply Nvith the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.
Resolution 2002-527
File No. 2002106
Page 3
6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per
Ordinance provisions.
This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner*- - - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
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 Sections 21030.06 and 21045.09 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
ADOPTED by the City Council on November 26, 2002.
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 26, 2002 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