Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1999-255CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 99-255 APPROVING A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME 11 FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND 12 FEET FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE FOR DAVID AND TERESA AINSWORTH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 950 GARLAND LANE (99040) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by David and Teresa Ainsworth which requests approval of a lot width variance, and variances for an 11 -foot and 12 -foot side yard setback, where the ordinance requires a 15 -foot setback for property legally described as follows: Lot 5, Block 3, City View Acres 2nd Unit WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called public meeting. 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 David and Teresa Ainsworth for a lot width variance and variances to permit an 11 -foot setback from the north property line and a 12 -foot setback from the south property line for property located at 950 Garland, subject to the following conditions: 1. This resolution approves a variance to permit an 11 -foot setback from the north property line and a 12 -foot setback from the south property line for the construction of a new home in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on April 30, 1999 and May 14, 1999, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The applicant shall submit a grading plan with the building permit application. 3. The lot width variance is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically: Resolution 99-255 (99040) Page 2 a) The applicant has demonstrated a hardship with the physical surroundings, topographical conditions, and shape of the property. The existing lot is approximately 60 feet wide at the street and 110 feet wide at the lakeshore, and exceeds the minimum lot area requirement of the ordinance. The majority of the lots in this same subdivision are 85 feet in width, and therefore, could be redeveloped with a single family home subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Without the variance, the applicant would not be able to enjoy a reasonable use of the property. For the purpose of this variance request, a reasonable use is defined as a use enjoyed by other properties in the City View Acres subdivision. b) The conditions upon which the variation is based are unique to this property. Other lots in this same subdivision and zoning classification do not share the same hardship with regard to the shape, width, and topographical conditions of the lot. The 35,700 square foot pie - shaped lot has significant grade changes that restricts the area in which to construct a home on the property. Additionally, the subject property is a non -conforming lot of record that contains an existing home. 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 based on a desire to have a reasonable use of the property. d) The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance. The creation of the lot predates the City's Zoning Ordinance, and is therefore, a lawfully existing non -conforming lot. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to enjoy a reasonable use of the property by constructing a new single family home. Without the requested lot width variance, the applicant could not replace the existing home. e) The granting of the variance to allow the replacement of a home on the lot would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land in the neighborhood, because the requested lot width variance would not change the use of the property. The variance would allow the applicant to replace the existing home with a new home, which would make the property more compatible with some of the newer and remodeled homes in the neighborhood. f) The replacement of a home on this lot would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Additionally, the home would not endanger public safety or create a problem for vehicular traffic. Finally, the home would not increase the danger of fire or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood. The lot is of adequate size to construct a home while maintaining reasonable setbacks from adjacent properties. g) The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship while enjoying a reasonable use of the property. Without the variance, the applicant could not build a new home on the property. Resolution 99-255 (99040) Page 3 4. The lot width variance is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards are met. Specifically: a) The size and shape of the lot creates a unique hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. The lot exceeds the minimum area requirement of the ordinance, but is only 63 feet wide at the required front setback. Additionally, the topographical conditions of the lot are such that it is not possible to move the home to the east where the lot is wider. The elevation of the lot drops approximately 25 feet from the street to the lake. b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to this property, because most of the lots in the City View Acres 2nd Unit are wider than the subject property. Additionally, the City has granted 10 other variances in this subdivision, including two side yard setback variances for properties located adjacent to Gleason Lake. In 1970, the City approved a variance to permit an 11 -foot side yard setback at 930 Garland Lane, and in 1974 the City approved a 10 -foot side yard setback at 16820 9th Avenue. While no variance sets a precedent, the Council found similar hardships associated with the width of the lots in the City View Acres Subdivision when granting these other variances. 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 requested to enjoy a reasonable use of the property. d) The hardship is caused by the setback requirements of the RSF-1 zoning ordinance that are based on a minimum lot width of 110 feet. The existing non -conforming lot is only 63 feet wide at the required setback. Consequently, the requested variance is not self- created. 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 home would be setback 11.5 feet from the north property line and 12.9 feet from the south property line. The requested setbacks provide adequate room to accommodate grading and surface water drainage. Further, the new two-story home with a walkout basement would be compatible with other new and remodeled homes in the neighborhood. f) The location of the home would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Additionally, the location of the home would not endanger public safety or create a problem for vehicular traffic, nor would the home increase the danger of fire or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood, because the proposed home would be 30 feet from the home to the north and 33 feet from the home to the south. g) The requested variance appears to be the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. While the applicant could possibly construct a narrower house, the proposed 48 -foot wide house does not appear to be excessive as compared to other homes in the Resolution 99-255 (99040) Page 4 RSF-1 zoning district. Further, it would not be possible to make the home longer, as opposed to wider, because of the significant grade change. The applicant is also attempting to match as closely as possible the front yard setback of the homes on either side of the lot, in order to maintain a similar setback from the street. As proposed, the home would be located approximately 70 feet from the front property line. The homes to the north and south are located 80 and 90 feet from the road, respectively. 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 June 1, 1999. 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 June 1, 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