HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2000-079CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2000-079
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 27 -FOOT SETBACK FROM A RAILROAD
WHERE 50 FEET IS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
(20002)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Julik & Associates, Inc. which requests approval of a
variance to permit a 27 -foot setback from a railroad where 50 feet is required for construction of
a single family home for property legally described as follows:
Lot 3, Block 3, The Ponds at Bass Creek 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
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 Julik &
Associates, Inc. for a variance for a 27 -foot setback from a railroad, subject to the following
conditions:
1. This resolution approves a variance for an approximately 27 -foot setback from the railroad for
construction of a single family home, in accordance with the plans and application received by
the City on January 13, 2000, except as amended by this resolution.
2. The setback variance is approved with the finding that the applicable variance standards are
met. Specifically:
a. The size and shape of the lot and the location of the railroad right-of-way create a
hardship. This approximately 12,000 -square foot, pie -shaped lot was originally created as
part of a mixed PUD. When the lot was platted in 1995, the Zoning Ordinance required a
25 -foot rear yard setback. However, the current Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 -foot
setback from a railroad. The size and shape of the lot, which is narrow at the front of the
lot, makes compliance with the current setback requirements difficult. The home must be
located on the south portion of the lot in order to comply with the front and side yard
setback requirements.
Resolution 2000-079
(20002)
Page 2
b. The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other properties in
the RSF-2 district. This lot of record is unique due to the size and shape of the lot and the
location of the railroad right-of-way. This lot is unique because the lot was created prior
to adoption of the current setback requirement. Failure to grant the variance would result
in construction of a home that is much smaller than and out of character with the other
homes in the neighborhood.
The request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential. The variance
is requested to provide reasonable use of the land as a single family home site.
d. The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance and the physical surroundings of the
property, and was not self-created.
The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land in the neighborhood because the vacant lot would be developed consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The home would be consistent with
the homes in the immediate vicinity.
f. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property,
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of fire,
endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
g. The variance is the minimum action necessary to construct the proposed home on the
subject property.
3. No other variances are granted or implied.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant must apply for and receive an
administrative permit for development of a vacant, substandard sized lot.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the survey must be amended to identify the railroad
right-of-way.
6. The applicant must obtain the appropriate permits from the Building Division prior to
commencing any work on the building.
7. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per
Ordinance provisions.
8. 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.
Resolution 2000-079
(20002)
Page 3
Adopted by the City Council on February 15, 2000.
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 February 15, 2000 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