HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2001-540CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2001-540
APPROVING VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE REDEVELOPMENT OF A NON-
CONFORMING LOT LOCATED AT 1855 TROY LANE NORTH (2001137)
WHEREAS, Bernhard and Annette Van Lengerich have requested variances to allow the
redevelopment of a legally non -conforming lot without public frontage for property legally
described as follows:
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 118 North, Range 22, west
of the 5"' Principal Meridian described as follows: Commencing at the point of
intersection of the centerline of Tract I, Registered Land Survey No. 854 and the
northwesterly line of said Registered Land Survey; thence northwesterly on a line
forming an angle in the westerly quadrant of 85 degrees 45 minutes with said
northwesterly line a distance of 160 feet; thence deflecting right 14 degrees a
distance of 48.1 feet to the point of beginning of the property being described;
thence continuing northwesterly along last described course a distance of 251.9
feet; thence deflecting left 39 degrees 7 minutes a distance of 104 feet; thence
deflecting left 82 degrees 10 minutes a distance of 391 feet, more or less of the
shore of Mooney Lake; thence southerly along said shore to a line drawn
southwesterly from the point of beginning forming an interior angle of 97 degrees
28 minutes 48 seconds; thence northeasterly to the point of beginning,
And,
That part of Government Lot 3 which is a strip of land 33 feet side lying within a
distance of 16.5 feet on each side of the following described centerline, to wit:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the centerline of said tract I and the
northwesterly line of Registered Land Survey 854, thence northwesterly on a line
forming an angle in the westerly quadrant of 85 degrees 45 minutes with said
northwesterly line a distance of 160 feet; thence deflecting right 14 degrees a
Resolution 2001-540
(2001137)
Page 2
distance of 300 feet; thence deflecting left 39 degrees 07 minutes a distance of
135.6 feet and there ending;. EXCEPT that part thereof, if any, embraced within
said Registered Land survey and EXCEPT that part hereof embraced within the
first above described tract of land.
And,
Together with an easement for ingress and egress over Tracts H and I, Registered
Land Survey No. 854, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
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 Bernhard and Annette Van Lengerich for a variance to allow the
redevelopment of a non -conforming lot without public frontage, subject to the following
conditions:
1. A variance to allow the redevelopment of a non -conforming lot without public
frontage in the FRD Zoning District is approved to allow constriction of a single
family detached dwelling, as shown on the application and plans received on October
25, 2001, based on the following findings:
a. The strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause an undue hardship.
1) The applicant would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is
otherwise prohibited by the ordinance. Without the variance a new home
could not be built on the lot. The proposed home meets all other ordinance
requirements.
2) The plight of the applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner. The lot was created prior to adoption of the
ordinance requirement for frontage on a public road.
3) The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Other lots in
the area do not meet the public road frontage requirements. Other lots in the
area are developed as single family residences.
b. The standards set forth in Section 21030 of the zoning ordinance have been
satisfied:
Resolution 2001-540
(2001137)
Page 3
1) That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or
topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a
particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a
mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be
carried out.
The subject lot was created in 1959, prior to the requirements for frontage on a
public road. The ordinance requirements would prohibit the reasonable use of
the property for a new single family residence.
2) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are
unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning
classification.
The lot was created before the current ordinance standards were adopted.
Most property in the zoning classification meets ordinance requirements.
3) That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
The request to constrict the home is not based upon a desire to increase
income potential.
4) 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 hardship is not self-created. The 1989 and 1996 changes to the Zoning
Ordinance caused the hardship.
5) That the granting of the variation will 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.
Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare of the
neighborhood. The applicants have demonstrated that the lot can be developed
with a single-family home that otherwise meets all other applicable City Codes.
6) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of
the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public
Resolution 2001-540
(2001137)
Page 4
safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
The proposed variation is not likely to impair light or air to adjacent properties,
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, endanger the public
safety or diminish property values within the neighborhood.
7) That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate
the hardship.
The action is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. Without
the variance a new home could not be built on the property.
c. The applicants have demonstrated that if they were allowed to constrict a single-
family home on the subject lot if could meet all of the required setbacks and
shoreland coverage requirements for the FRD zoning district.
d. The applicants have demonstrated that the lot can be developed with a single-
family home that meets all applicable City Codes.
2. The Shore Impact Zone shall be left in a natural condition.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for returning the private road at least to the
condition it is in prior to the start of constriction. If the road becomes deteriorated or
unpassable because of constriction activity during the constriction process, it shall be
repaired by the applicant.
4. Standard Conditions:
a. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and
approvals per Ordinance provisions.
b. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances, and
violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
c. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property
owner or applicant has substantially started constriction 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 21015.07
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Adopted by the City Council December 18, 2001.
Resolution 2001-540
(2001137)
Page 5
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 December 18, 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