HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2001-409CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2001-409
APPROVING LOT DIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR DEMARS-GABRIEL LAND
SURVEYORS, INC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10230 -28TH AVENUE NORTH
(2001083)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. which
requests approval of a lot division and variance to allow creation of a new single-family lot
for property generally located at 10230-28"' Avnue North; and
WHEREAS, the subject site is presently legally described on Attachment One, attached
hereto and hereby made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, the proposed lot arrangement for which the lot division is sought is as legally
described on Attachment Two, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof, 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
lot division and variance request by Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc., subject to the
following findings and conditions:
1. This lot division and variance request is granted in accordance with the plans received
by the City on September 11, 2001, except as may be amended by this resolution.
2. The variance for lot width of Parcel 2 (the northwest parcel) is granted based upon
findings that the applicable variance standards have been met, as follows:
a) A hardship exists due to the arrangement and shape of the land. There is enough
land area within this site to accommodate two RSF-I lots, however, the
arrangement and shape of the site on the landscape and its relationship to the street
frontage creates the need for a variance to the lot width requirement. The
Resolution 2001-409
(2001083)
Page 2 of 5
proposed variance would provide for reasonable use of this 1.28 -acre site, and
allow it to be divided in a manner that saves trees and preserves the character of
the neighborhood.
b) The circumstances related to this request are not generally applicable to other
properties in this area. The original platting and arrangement of this site, which
occurred in the 1920's, established a lot configuration that does not serve the
needs of present day land use.
c) The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income
potential. The variance would allow the site to be divided in a manner that
preserves the character of the neighborhood and saves trees.
d) The conditions relating to the hardship were not created by the landowner, but
rather were created by the original platting of the site.
e) The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the neighborhood. The proposal would be compatible with the
established development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. There are
several other lots in the neighborhood that have less than 110 feet in lot width at
the front yard setback line.
f) The granting of the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety,
diminish property values within the neighborhood, or substantially increase the
congestion of public streets.
g) The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
Parcel 2 would be 44 feet wide at the front setback line, providing ample width to
accommodate the driveway. The parcel would be 165 feet wide in the area where
the home would be placed, and therefore would exceed the City's requirement in
that portion of the parcel.
3. The areas of the parcels that lie within the Shoreland Overlay District for Medicine
Lake are limited to a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent, or as may
be amended in the fiiture.
4. Any purchase agreements for either of the parcels shall clearly state that the maximum
impervious surface coverage, including swimming pools, shall comply with the City's
Shoreland Overlay District regulations.
5. Prior to filing the lot division with Hennepin County, the park dedication fee for two
residential dwelling units shall be submitted to the City.
Resolution 2001-409
(2001083)
Page 3 of 5
6. Prior to issuance of building permits, the lot division shall be recorded with Hennepin
County.
7. Due to the length of the driveway for Parcel 2 (the northwest parcel), the house
number for that parcel shall be posted next to its driveway near 28"' Avenue.
8. The home on Parcel I shall be set parallel to 28"' Avenue North.
9. Compliance with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance.
10. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing for Trees 49, 410, and 440 prior to
demolition of the existing home.
11. Standard Conditions:
a) Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum.
b) Removal of all hazardous trees from the property at the owner's expense.
c) Compliance with Policy Resolution 79-80 regarding minimum floor elevations for
new strictures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm water drainage
facility.
d) No yard setback variances are granted or implied.
e) Prior to filing the Lot Division with Hennepin County, submission of the required
utility and drainage easement documents, as approved by the City Engineer.
f) 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.
ADOPTED by City Council on October 9, 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 October 9, 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
ATTACHMENT ONE
Resolution 2001-409
(2001083)
Page 4 of 5
(Existing Legal Description)
That part of Lot 5, "AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 333, Hennepin County,
Minnesota" which lies south of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the
east line of said Lot 5, distant 320.6 feet north of the southeast corner thereof, thence
northwesterly to a point on the west line of said Lots, distant 331.9 feet south from the
northwest corner thereof.
Resolution 2001-409
(2001083)
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT TWO
(Proposed Legal Descriptions)
PARCEL 1
That part of Lot 5, "AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 333, Hennepin County,
Minnesota" which lies southerly and easterly of the following described line: Beginning at
the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence westerly along the south line of said Lot 5 on an
assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 34 minutes 09 seconds West distant 121.00 feet;
thence North 00 degrees 17 minutes 54 seconds West distant 136.78 feet; thence
northeasterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 5 distant 175.10 feet northerly of the
southeast corner thereof, thence southerly 175.10 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL 2
That part of Lot 5, "AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 333, Hennepin County,
Minnesota" which lies south of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the
east line of said Lot 5, distant 320.6 feet north of the southeast corner thereof, thence
northwesterly to a point on the west line of said Lot 5, distant 331.9 feet south from the
northwest corner thereof which lies northerly and westerly of the following described line:
Beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence westerly along the south line of
said Lot 5 on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 34 minutes 09 seconds West
distantl21.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 17 minutes 54 seconds West distant 136.78
feet; thence northeasterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 5 distant 175.10 feet
northerly of the southeast corner thereof, thence southerly 175.10 feet to the point of
beginning.
Note: The parcel designations used herein are f v convenience only and do not
represent an integral part cif the legal descriptions.