HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2016-275
C ITY OF P LYMOUTH
R ESOLUTION N O. 2016-275
R ESOLUTION A PPROVING V ARIANCE FOR B OYER B UILDING C ORP.
FOR P ROPERTY L OCATED AT 10524 S OUTH S HORE D RIVE (2016 061)
WHEREAS, Boyer Building Corp. has requested approval of a side yard setback variance to allow
a 6-foot by 6-foot addition for an elevator for property located at 10524 South Shore Drive; and
WHEREAS, the proposed addition would be set back 4.8 feet from the west side lot line, where
10 feet is specified.
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: Lot 1, Block 2, and the Northwesterly
16.06 feet of that part of Columbia Avenue (vacated) lying Northeasterly of Central Avenue, Medicine
Lake Park First Division, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said 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 Boyer Building Corp. for a side yard
setback variance to allow a 6-foot by 6-foot addition for an elevator for property located at 10524 South
Shore Drive, subject to the following:
1. The requested variance to allow an addition that would be set back 4.8 feet from the west side lot
line is hereby approved, in accordance with the plans received by the city on July 13, 2016, except
as may be amended by this resolution.
2. The requested variance is approved, based on the finding that all applicable variance standards
have been met, specifically:
a) The requested variance, and its resulting construction, would be in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the ordinance, and would be consistent with the city’s comprehensive
plan.
b) The applicant has demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the
ordinance regulations, because:
1. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
2. The request is due to unique circumstances, and would allow the homeowner to continue
living and working in the home.
3. The variance would not alter the essential character of the lot or neighborhood.
c) The requested variance is not based upon economic considerations. The applicant is requesting
the variances in order to make the home safer and more accessible for the homeowner.