HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2000-539CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2000-539
APPROVING A LOT AREA VARIANCE AND BUILDING SETBACK VARIANCE
FOR BRYAN KIHLE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2430 MAGNOLIA LANE
(20160)
WHEREAS, Bryan Kihle has requested approval of a lot area variance and building
setback variance to allow redevelopment of a single-family lot located at 2430 Magnolia
Lane and legally described as follows:
That part of Lots 4 and 5, Block 4, "Elmhurst Gardens", lying Southeasterly of a
line drawn from a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 5 distant 6 feet Southerly
from the Northwest corner of said Lot 5 to a point on the East line of said Lot 4
distant 63.5 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner of said Lot 4.
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 Bryan Kihle for two variances, subject to the following findings and conditions:
1. The variances allow 1) redevelopment of an undersized lot, and 2) construction of a
new single-family home that would be set back 13.2 feet from the north (side) lot line
where 15 is specified, in accordance with the application and plans received by the
City on October 5, 2000, except as amended by this resolution.
2. The applicable variance standards are met, as follows:
a) The subject lot was platted circa 1920 under a different set of zoning regulations.
Without the lot area variance, the lot could not be redeveloped. Additionally, the
Resolution 2000-539
(20160)
Page 2
size and shape of the lot results in the need for the building setback variance in
order to properly position a home on the lot.
b) The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other
properties in the RSF-1 district. This lot is located in the Elmhurst Neighborhood
of the City, which is a unique area because it contains a number of undersized lots
that were platted and developed prior to modern zoning and subdivision
regulations. Most lots in the RSF-1 district are larger and, therefore, would not
require a building setback variance in order to construct a 1,200 -square foot home
of the style proposed.
c) The request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential. The
proposal would allow the applicant to build a home on this lot for his family.
d) The conditions relating to the hardship (size and shape of the parcel) were not
created by the applicant, but rather were created by the original platting of the lot,
which occurred circa 1920.
e) The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
neighborhood. Many other lots in this neighborhood have a lot size that is similar
to the subject lot. In addition, the size and style of the proposed home would be
compatible with the neighborhood. The existing dwelling (a converted railroad
car) is roughly 80 feet long and is located roughly two feet from the north (side)
lot line. Removal of that dwelling and redevelopment of the lot with a new home
that is setback 13.2 feet from the north lot line would substantially improve the
existing building setback condition.
f) The proposal would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or diminish
property values within the neighborhood. This proposal would be an improvement
to the lot and neighborhood because it would remove the existing non -conforming
dwelling, and replace it with a new more traditional single-family home.
g) A lot area variance is required in order to redevelop this lot due to its size. The
building setback variance is the minimum action needed to construct a reasonably
sized home on the lot due to its size and shape.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, all existing structures must be removed from
the lot.
4. For purposes of determining required yard setbacks, the northerly lot line shall be
considered a side lot line, the easterly lot line shall be considered a rear lot line, and all
other lot lines shall be considered front lot lines. Under this approval, the homeowner
Resolution 2000-539
(20160)
Page 3
may attach an open deck to the rear of the home, but may not attach an enclosed
porch to the rear of the home.
5. 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 November 14, 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 November 14, 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