Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1999-347CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 99-347 APPROVING VARIANCES FOR ROBERT AND JULIE FERN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15130 -9TH AVENUE NORTH (99043) WHEREAS, Robert and Julie Fern have requested approval of an imperious surface coverage variance and side yard setback variance to allow two additions onto their home at 15130 -9th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Lot 17, Parkers Lakeside Acres, 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 Robert and Julie Fern for two variances, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances allow the construction of two additions onto the existing home at 15130 -9th Avenue North, in accordance with the plans received by the City on July 19, 1999, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The resolution approves a variance to allow up to 33 percent of the lot to be covered with impervious surface where the Zoning Ordinance specifies a maximum imperious surface coverage of 25 percent, with the following findings: a) The hardship is related to the non -conforming lot size of the property. This RSF-1 zoned property contains only 11,078 square feet of lot area. Under the 25 percent maximum coverage regulation, up to 2,769.5 square feet of coverage is allowed before a variance is required. The property presently has 48 percent (5,261 square feet) impervious surface coverage. The proposed 3,710 square feet of coverage, as requested under the plan, would result in decreasing the coverage from 48 Resolution 99-347 (99043) Page 2 percent to 33 percent. This would be a substantial improvement over the existing condition. If the variance is denied, the applicants could not go forward with the project and the coverage would remain at 48 percent. Additionally, if the variance is denied, the applicants would not be able to make the needed improvements to their home and enjoy a reasonable use of their property. b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to this property, because most lots in the RSF-1 district are significantly larger in lot area than the subject property. The minimum lot area requirement in the RSF-1 district is 18,500 square feet. The subject lot contains 11,078 square feet. If the site met the minimum lot size required in the RSF-1 district, the site would be allowed up to 4,625 square feet of impervious surface coverage and the variance would not be required. 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 provide additional and more convenient living space on the property. d) The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance. The creation of this lot predates the City's Zoning Ordinance, which limits impervious surface coverage to 25 percent of the lot area. The requested variance would allow the applicants to enjoy a reasonable use of their property. Without the requested variance, the applicants could not make the planned improvements to their home. e) The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land in the neighborhood. The proposed reduction in the impervious surface coverage would be an improvement over the existing condition. f) The proposed reduction in impervious surface coverage would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The proposal would not endanger public safety or create a problem for vehicular traffic. The proposal would not increase the danger of fire or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposal would update and expand the existing home, resulting in an increase in property value. g) The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship while enjoying a reasonable use of the property. The applicant could further decrease the impervious surface coverage by constructing a two -car garage rather that the proposed three -car garage. However, in order to make the project financially viable and justify removal of the existing two -car detached garage which is in good condition, the applicant need to be permitted to increase their garage/storage space. Without the variance, the site would remain at 48 percent imperious surface coverage rather than being reduced to 33 percent impervious surface coverage. 3. The resolution approves a variance to allow an east side yard setback of eight feet where the Zoning Ordinance specifies a minimum setback of 15 feet, with the following findings: Resolution 99-347 (99043) Page 3 a) The width of the lot creates a unique hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. This RSF-1 zoned lot is only 58 feet wide, and the existing home is centered on the lot. In order to preserve the view from the living room, the garage must be positioned in the eastern portion of the lot. Assuming that the garage cannot be positioned any further to the west, the depth of the garage could only be 15 feet before a variance would be required. The standard garage depth for more recent construction has been 22 feet. b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to this property, because most lots in the RSF-1 district are significantly wider than the subject property. The minimum lot width requirement in the RSF-1 district is 110 feet. The subject lot is 58 -feet wide. 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 make the property more functional and livable. d) The hardship is caused by the width of the lot, which was platted prior to 1920. The hardship is also caused by the side yard setback requirement of the RSF-1 zoning ordinance, which is based on a minimum lot width of 110 feet. The subject lot is only 58 -feet wide, yet is held to the standards of a 110 -foot wide lot with respect to side yard setback. Consequently, the need for the 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. The proposed setback would provide adequate room to accommodate grading and surface water drainage. In addition, the proposed garage would not obstruct views for the home to the east because the existing fence and hedge would remain along the east lot line. f) The location of the garage would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. In addition, the location of the garage would not endanger public safety or create a problem for vehicular traffic, nor would the garage increase the danger of fire or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood. g) With the plan change specified by Condition No. 4 below, the side yard setback variance would be the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised plan to the Planning Division indicating a reduction in the garage depth from 24 feet to 22 feet, and an increase in the east side yard setback from six feet to eight feet. 5. Building permits shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction improvements. 6. There shall be no other future improvements on the lot (e.g., patio, tennis court) which result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface coverage from the plans dated July 19, 1999. Resolution 99-347 (99043) Page 4 7. 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 21030.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. ADOPTED by City Council on September 7, 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 September 7, 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