HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2000-143CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2000-143
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 -FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SIDE LOT
LINE WHERE 15 FEET IS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A SCREEN PORCH ADDITION
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13120 35TH AVENUE NORTH (20008)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Peni and Steve Gensler which requests approval of a
variance to permit a 10 -foot setback from the side lot line where 15 feet is required for
construction of a screen porch addition for property legally described as follows:
Lot 14, Block 2, Westwood Ridge 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called public meeting
and recommended 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 Peni and
Steve Gensler for a variance for a 10 -foot side yard setback, subject to the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves a variance for a 10 -foot setback from the side property line for
construction of a porch addition, in accordance with the plans and application received by the
City on January 21, 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 create a hardship. This irregular-shaped lot was created
under the former R-2 zoning district requirements. When the lot was platted in 1985,
the Zoning Ordinance required a 10 -foot rear yard setback. However, the current
Zoning Ordinance requires a 15 -foot setback from the side lot line. Additionally, the
shape of the lot and the location of the existing home make compliance with the current
setback requirements difficult. The home is not located parallel to the property line,
and any addition of the northwest side of the home would likely encroach into the
required setback.
Resolution 2000-143
(20008)
Page 2
(b) The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other properties
in the RSF-1 district. This lot of record is unique due to the shape of the lot and the
location of the existing home. This lot is unique because the lot was created prior to
adoption of the current setback requirement.
(c) The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income
potential. The variance is requested to provide reasonable use of the land as compared
to other homes in this subdivision. Many of the other homes in this subdivision are set
back 10 feet from side lot lines.
(d) The hardship is caused by the Zoning Ordinance and the physical surroundings of the
property, and was 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 requested setback would be consistent
with the setback of other homes in this subdivision.
(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. The screen porch addition would be 10 feet from the lot line and
approximately 50 feet from the adjacent home.
(g) The variance appears to be the minimum action necessary to construct a porch addition
on the subject property. While the 12 x 16 screen porch addition could potentially be
reduced in size, the addition and the requested setback would be consistent with other
homes in the subdivision.
3. No other variances are granted or implied.
4. The applicant must obtain the appropriate permits from the Building Division prior to
commencing any work on the building.
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 March 21, 2000.
Resolution 2000-143
(20008)
Page 3
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 March 21, 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