Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2001-262CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2001-262 APPROVING VARIANCES FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF AN UNDERSIZED LOT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 2356 IVES LANE N. (200104 1) WHEREAS, Dean and Linda Nelson have requested approval of variances for redevelopment of an undersized lot, lot width of less than 80 feet lot, building width of less than 22 feet, and side yard setback less than 10 feet to allow constriction of a single- family lot located at 2356 Ives Lane N. and legally described as follows: That part of Lot 6 lying westerly of the easterly 116.0 feet thereof, Block 6, 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 Dean and Linda Nelson for four variances, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The variances allow for redevelopment of an undersized lot, lot width of less than 80 feet lot, building width of less than 22 feet and side yard setback less than 10 feet to allow constriction of a single-family house at 2356 Ives Lane N., and are specified, in accordance with the application and plans received by the City on April 24, 2001 and May 14, 2001, except as amended by this resolution. Resolution 2001-262 (2001041) Page 2 of 3 2. The applicable variance standards are met, as follows: a) The subject lot was a lot of record that is vacant due to recent demolition of a condemned house. Without the variances, the lot could not be redeveloped. Additionally, the size and shape of the lot results in the need for the variances in order to constrict a house on the lot. b) The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other properties in the RSF-2 district. This lot is located in the Elmhurst Neighborhood of the City, which is a unique area because it contains a number of undersized lots that were platted and developed prior to modern zoning and subdivision regulations. Most lots in the RSF-2 district are larger and, therefore, would not require a variance in order to constrict a 1,080 -square foot home as proposed. c) The request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential. The proposal would allow the applicant to build a home on this lot for their family. d) The conditions relating to the hardship (size and shape of the parcel) were not created by the applicant, but rather were created by the original platting of the lot and previous lot division in 1990. e) The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the neighborhood. Many other lots in this neighborhood have a lot size that is similar to the subject lot. In addition, the size and style of the proposed home would be compatible with the neighborhood. Redevelopment of the lot with a new home would be an improvement for the area and would provide housing for the applicant. 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 as a new single-family home would be constricted on the lot. g) The variance is required in order to redevelop this lot due to its size and shape. The variances are the minimum action needed to constrict a reasonably sized home on the lot. 3. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the landowner or applicant has started 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. Resolution 2001-262 (2001041) Page 3 of 3 ADOPTED by City Council on June 26, 2001. 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 26, 2001, 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