Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1999-248CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 99-248 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE IN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR DARREL NASTROM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18105 CO. RD. 24 (99005) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Darrel Nastrom which requests approval of a variance to permit a one -foot driveway setback, where the ordinance requires a 3 -foot setback, and a 5.5 -foot garage setback, where the ordinance requires a 6 -foot setback for property legally described as follows: Lot 12, Block 1, Greentree Addition 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 request by Darrel Nastrom for a variance to permit a one -foot driveway setback and a 5.5 -foot garage setback for property located at 18105 Co. Rd. 24, subject to the following conditions: 1. This resolution approves a variance to permit a one -foot driveway setback, and a 5.5 -foot garage setback in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on January 19, 1999, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The applicant shall remove part of the newly poured concrete driveway in order to provide a one -foot setback. 3. The variance for the driveway is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically: Resolution 99-248 (99005) Page 2 a) The location of the existing driveway creates a unique hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. A driveway located one -foot from the side lot line would be farther from the lot line than the existing driveway that encroaches onto the neighboring property. Additionally, it appears that a gravel driveway existed in the location of the concrete driveway, and that the concrete driveway would encroach less than the previous gravel driveway. A gravel driveway and concrete driveway are subject to the same 3 -foot setback requirement. b) The conditions upon which this variance is based are unique to this property because there is an existing shared driveway that is located on the common lot line. c) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the income potential of the parcel; but rather, the variance is needed to extend the existing driveway to provide access to the rear of the lot. Without the variance, the applicant would have a difficult time making use of the shared driveway. d) The hardship is caused by the location of the existing driveway, and was not self-created. Further, the applicant indicated that he poured the concrete driveway over an existing gravel driveway; thereby, not increasing the non -conformity of the driveway setback. e) The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land in the neighborhood because the new concrete driveway would not create additional hard surface coverage, because both gravel and concrete driveways count as impervious surface. Therefore, the concrete driveway would not create additional runoff. f) The location of the driveway would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Additionally, the location of the driveway would not endanger public safety or create a problem for vehicular traffic, nor would the shed increase the danger of fire or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood. g) The applicant is proposing to remove a portion of the driveway in order to provide a one - foot setback. Removing a greater portion of the driveway would make it difficult to use the existing driveway without having to reconstruct the entire driveway. 4. The variance for the garage is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically: a) The applicant incorrectly located the property line when determining the necessary setback for the garage which resulted in a two inch encroachment. The front of the garage complies with the 6 -foot setback requirement; however, the garage is at a slight angle to the property line which makes the back of the garage only 5.5 feet from the side lot line. Moving the front of the building two inches would not result in a significant change to the Resolution 99-248 (99005) Page 3 appearance of the building in relation to the lot line. This minor encroachment would not violate the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance setback requirements. b) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the income potential of the parcel; but rather, the variance appears to be based on a desire to leave the garage in its current location to avoid having to move it two inches to comply with the Zoning Ordinance standards. c) The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land in the neighborhood because the garage would not impact surface drainage or restrict light or air to adjacent residential homes. Additionally, only one corner of the garage encroaches into the required setback. This encroachment is two inches. d) The location of the garage would not impair an inadequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Additionally, the location of the garage would not endanger public safety or create a problem for vehicular traffic because the shed is not within the sight triangle of the intersection and would not obstruct the view of motorists. Finally, the garage would not increase the danger of fire or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood because it is located over 45 feet from the nearest home. 5. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. 6. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has substantially started construction 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 21030.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the City Council on May 18, 1999. Resolution 99-248 (99005) Page 4 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 May 18, 1999 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