HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2008-222CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2008-222
APPROVING VARIANCES TO FRONT YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE AREA COVERAGE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME
ADDITION BY SKYLINE DESIGN, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1895
JUNEAU LANE NORTH (2008049)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Skyline Design, Inc. which requests
approval of a setback and shoreland variance to permit constriction of a home addition
for property legally described as follows:
Lot 61, Block 2, Cimarron East, 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 setback and shoreland variance to permit
constriction of a home addition for property located at 1895 Juneau Lane North, subject
to the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves variances to allow a front yard setback of 17.1 feet to the
base lot line and 42.8 percent impervious surface area coverage where 25 percent
coverage is permitted, in accordance with the plans and application received by the
City on June 6, 2008 and additional information on June 9, 2008, except as amended
by this resolution.
2. The 14 -foot by 20 -foot addition shall be finished to match the existing home.
3. The setback and shoreland variances are approved with the finding that the applicable
variance standards are met. Specifically:
Resolution 2008-222
(2008049)
Page 2
a. The shape of the lot and the placement of the home towards the front of the lot limit
the area in which an addition could be placed both aesthetically and architecturally.
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.
b. The conditions of the requested variance are unique based upon the size and shape of
the lot and the location of the unit lot. If the home were constricted further back on
the lot there would be more room for the proposed room addition to meet the front
yard setback to the base lot.
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 home was built in 1978; the current owner purchased the home in 1995. The
owner did not design the placement of the home on the lot. 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.
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.
Resolution 2008-222
(2008049)
Page 3
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.
Adopted by the City Council on July 22, 2008.
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 July 22, 2008, 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