HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2009-195CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION No. 2009-195
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA COVERAGE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ADDITION BY SKYLINE DESIGN, INC. FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 161 BLACK OAKS LANE NORTH (2009038)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Skyline Design, Inc. which requests
approval of a shoreland variance to permit constriction of a home addition for property
legally described as follows:
Lot 55, Block 2, Cimarron Ponds, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
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 Skyline Design, Inc. for a shoreland variance to permit constriction of a
home addition for property located at 1161 Black Oaks Lane North, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This resolution approves a variance to allow a 55.3 percent impervious surface area
coverage where 25 percent coverage is permitted, in accordance with the plans and
application received by the City on July 17, 2009, except as amended by this
resolution.
2. The 14 -foot by 22 -foot addition shall be finished to match the existing home.
3. The shoreland variance is approved with the finding that the applicable variance
standards are met. Specifically:
a. The creation of this lot predates the City's shoreland regulations. At the time the
property was platted, the development was not required to comply with the
impervious surface requirements. Consequently, the developers of the project
established lot lines without regard to impervious surface coverage on the unit lots.
Resolution 2009-195
(2009038)
Page 2
b. The conditions relating to the hardship are not generally applicable to other properties
in the RSF-4 zoning district. The platting of this lot predates the shoreland district
requirements. Additionally, this subdivision is unique because its homeowners
association owns common open space between the residences and the lake, which
was intended to serve as a buffer between the homes and the lake.
c. The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income
potential of the property; but rather, the variance is requested to make improvements
to the home to make it more livable for the current occupant.
d. The creation of the lot predates the shoreland district requirements. Additionally, the
shoreland regulations do not recognize the common open space areas of this
development, which reduce the overall impervious surface coverage for the
development. Minnesota case law has determined that a self-created hardship on its
own is not a sufficient basis for a city to deny a variance.
e. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to finish
the room addition with the same materials used on the exterior of the home. The
addition would also comply with all other Zoning Ordinance requirements.
f. The proposed addition would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent
property, nor would it substantially increase congestion in public streets, increase the
danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values
within the neighborhood.
g. The requested variance appears to be the minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship and to allow the homeowner to improve the livability of the home and to
provide additional space. The applicant would remove an existing cement patio from
the lot which would limit the amount of added impervious surface.
4. A building permit for the addition shall be obtained prior to construction.
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 constriction 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 2009-195
(2009038)
Page 3
ADOPTED on August 25, 2009.
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 August 25, 2009, 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