HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2001-358CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2001-358
APPROVING A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LUIS AND ANA RAYAS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18125 27TH AVENUE NORTH (2001090)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Luis and Ana Rayas which requests approval of a
variance for a 10 -foot side yard setback where 15 feet is specified for a 14.5 -foot x 41.5 -foot
addition, for property legally described as follows:
Lot 7, Block 4, Meadowood 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 variance request of
Luis and Ana Rayas for a 10 -foot side yard setback where 15 feet is specified for property located
at 18125 27"' Avenue North, subject to the following findings and conditions:
1. This variance request to permit a 10 -foot side yard setback is hereby approved in accordance
with the application and plans received by the City on July 30, 2001, except as amended by
this resolution.
2. This resolution is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards have been
met. Specifically:
a. The applicants state that because the bedrooms that they are proposing to expand are in
the front of the house and on the same level as the master bedroom, it is impossible to
expand toward the rear yard. In addition, since the house is a walls -out, a bedroom
expansion to the back of the house would be at another level. Having to accommodate
five children, this would be both very expensive and unsafe, given the current layout of the
Resolution 2001-358
(2001090)
Page 2
house. In addition, there are also large trees in the rear yard that would be lost if the
expansion was in the rear.
b. The conditions upon which the variance request is based are not unique to this property.
All other property owners in the RSF-! zoning district must comply with the same setback
standards. However, the applicant's lot width and lot area are less than the minimum
requirements for this zoning district. This lot and many others within the RSF- I zoning
district and the immediate neighborhood are undersized with respect to the RSF-I
requirements.
c. The request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential of the
property. The proposal would allow the addition of bedrooms to accommodate the
applicant's five children. This would allow for the convenience and improved livability of
the property owners and would not detract from the appearance of the home or
surrounding properties. The applicant is proposing to constrict the addition with
materials and a design compatible with the existing exterior of the home.
d. The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance and has not been self-created. The
proposed variance has not been created by any people having an interest in the parcel of
land, rather, it is based on the applicants desire to improve the livability of the home.
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 applicant would design the addition
to be consistent with the character of the home.
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. The neighbors directly affected by the variance have
indicated that they have no objection to the proposed addition.
g. The applicants wish to remodel their existing home to add living space to accommodate a
growing family. Their plans are not excessive and consequently, the variance requested is
the minimum action necessary to alleviate the hardship.
4. The addition shall be finished to match the existing home and garage.
5. A building permit for the addition shall be obtained prior to constriction.
6. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the applicant has
substantially started constriction of the project, or unless the 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 2001-358
(2001090)
Page 3
ADOPTED by the City Council on August 28, 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 August 28, 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