HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1998-633CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 98-633
APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR FREDERICK AND ELIZABETH BOSMAN FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14530 — 14TH AVENUE NORTH (98165)
WHEREAS, Frederick and Elizabeth Bosman have requested approval of a variance to constrict
six-foot high fence in the 15"' Avenue front yard, for property legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 4, Block 2, Sunset Acres lying southeasterly of a line running from a point in the
southwesterly line of Lot 4 dis 85 feet northwesterly from the most southerly corner thereof to a
point in the north line of said lot dis 60 feet westerly from northeast corner thereof. Section 28,
Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered 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 by
Frederick and Elizabeth Bosman for property located at 14530 — 14"' Avenue North, subject to
the following conditions and findings:
1. This variance allows a six-foot high fence in the 15"' Avenue front yard, in accordance with
the plans and application received by the City on September 10, 1998.
2. The applicant must obtain a fence permit for the fence.
3. The variance for a six-foot high fence is approved, based on the finding that the seven
variance standards have been met. Specifically:
Resolution 98-633
(98165)
Page 2
a. Due to the shape of this particular through lot, failure to grant the variance would result in
a hardship to the property owner. This through lot does not have a rear yard according to
Zoning Ordinance definitions. Although the portion of the property with frontage on 15t1'
Avenue functions as a rear yard, the ordinance defines it as a front yard and a privacy
fence could not be constricted in that area without a variance.
b. There are unique conditions related to the parcel due to the fact that this is a through lot
with two front yards, two side yards and no rear yard. The applicant cannot constrict a
six-foot privacy fence in the area that functions as the rear yard without a variance.
c. The increased fence height is not requested solely to increase the value or income potential
of the property.
d. The hardship is caused by the ordinance, which does not allow the owner of a through lot
to establish a typical rear yard. This lot has two front yards, two side yards and no rear
yard.
e. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood. It would replace a six-foot high fence that
was removed because it was rotting.
f. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, increase the congestion of public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger
the public safety.
g. The fence height requested is the minimum height needed to alleviate the hardship.
ADOPTED by the City Council this 21" day of October 1998.