HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1998-467CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 98-467
APPROVING FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR DEAN
HILDEBRANDT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2475 HEMLOCK LANE NORTH
(98113)
WHEREAS, Dean Hildebrandt requested approval of a variance to allow a 9.0 -foot
setback, where the ordinance requires 25 feet at 2475 Hemlock Lane North; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as; and
That part of Lot 1, Block 4, lying Northwesterly of a line running Northeasterly at right
angles from Southwesterly line at right angles from Southwesterly line of Lot 1, at a point
105 feet Northwesterly from most Southerly corner of said lot, Elmhurst, 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 Dean Hildebrandt for variance to allow a 9 -foot front yard setback, subject to
the following findings and conditions:
1. The variance allows a 7.2 x 14.5 foot building addition, in accordance with the
application received by the City on June 15, 1998.
2. The applicable variance standards are met, as follows:
a) Unique hardship exists due to the location of the right-of-way, and the size and
shape of the parcel. The property is a corner lot that is only 5,500 square feet in
size.
b) The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other
properties in the RSF-2 district. This area of the City is very unique due to the
Resolution 98-467
(98113)
Page 2
non -conforming lots that were platted prior to modern zoning and subdivision
regulations. Furthermore, this specific lot is smaller than adjoining properties
because of the width of the adjacent right-of-way.
c) The conditions relating to the hardship were not created by the applicants, but
rather were created by the original platting of the lot which occurred in the early
1900s.
d) The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income
potential. The proposal would help to make the existing home more functional.
e) The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or the neighborhood,
nor would it impair the supply of light and air to adjacent property, increase the
danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or diminish property values within the
neighborhood. More specifically, the addition would not be any closer to the
existing roads than is the existing foundation. In addition, the proposal would be
compatible with the general character of the neighborhood.
f) The applicant's request appears to be reasonable, while minimizing the extent of
the variations needed to alleviate the hardship. The proposed 104 -square foot
addition would encroach an additional 4 feet beyond the existing setback, and
would not be any closer to the street than is the existing foundation.
3. A building permit is required for the proposed improvements.
4. 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 August 5, 1998.
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 5, 1998, 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