Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2006-063CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2006-063 APPROVING VARIANCES FOR BRUCE LARSON FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF A NON- CONFORMING LOT AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10300 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE (2005147) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Brice Larson which requests approval of variances for redevelopment of a non -conforming lot and impervious surface coverage to allow constriction of a new single-family home for property legally described as follows: Lot I including the adjacent half of vacated County Road 70, Block 1, Medicine Lake Park First Division, 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 Brice Larson for variances for redevelopment of a non -conforming lot and impervious surface coverage to allow constriction of a new single-family home at 10300 South Shore Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. This resolution approves variances to allow 1) redevelopment of an existing lot of record that is non -conforming due to lot width and 2) impervious surface coverage of 27.6 percent, in accordance with the plans and materials received by the City on December 15, 2005, except as may be amended by this resolution. 2. The variances are approved with the findings that the applicable variance standards are met, as follows: a. The subject lot is an existing non -conforming lot of record that was created prior to modern zoning and subdivision regulations and contains the entire roadway easement for Resolution 2006-063 (2005147) Page 2 South Shore Drive. The applicant proposes to improve the property by removing an existing single-family home and subsequently constricting a new single-family home with a attached garage. The long and narrow shape of the lot and the oversized roadway easement that is located completely within the applicant's property results in a need to exceed the allowable impervious surface coverage. Without the variances, the lot could not be redeveloped in a reasonable manner in keeping with the established neighborhood character. b. The circumstances related to this request are not generally applicable to other properties in the RSF-2 district. The Medicine Lake Park lit Addition where this lot is located is unique due to its non -conforming lots that were originally platted in the early 1900's, prior to modern zoning and subdivision regulations and the reconfiguration of the roadway easement. These circumstances established a lot configuration that does not readily serve the needs of present-day land use, unless variances are granted. c. The request is not based upon a desire to increase value or income potential. The proposal would allow the applicants to build a new single-family home on this residentially zoned lot, replacing a 1920's era building. The new home would be for the applicant's mother to reside in. d. The hardship relating to the lot width was not created by the applicants, but rather was created by the original platting of the lot in the early 1900's and the location of South Shore Drive. The difficulties relating to the requested variances for impervious surface coverage and a narrow lot are a result of factors beyond the applicants' control. e. The proposal would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the neighborhood. Many lots in this neighborhood have a similar lot width and exceed 25 percent impervious surface coverage. Lastly, the size and location of the proposed home would be compatible with the neighborhood. 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. g. The request, including the applicant's proposal to remove one driveway and surface the driveway to the attached garage with alternative paving materials and adding a raingarden, is reasonable and strikes a balance between allowing redevelopment to occur while preserving neighborhood character and minimizing the extent of the variations needed to alleviate the hardship. 3. Separate demolition and building permits are required prior to any constriction activity on the property. 4. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicants shall revise the plans as follows: a) Remove the driveway on the south side of South Shore Drive and reestablish turf using sod. b) Provide the location, size, and constriction and planting details for the rain garden. c) Provide the materials proposed to be used to re -side and re -roof the shed. Resolution 2006-063 (2005147) Page 3 d) Provide the specifications for the materials proposed to be used to pave the driveway to the attached garage and all supporting documentation necessary to document that the final impervious surface coverage for the property does not exceed 27.6 percent. 5. The existing legally non -conforming shed may continue as long as 1) it remains in compliance with the requirements for legally, non -conforming strictures in the Zoning Ordinance and 2) the applicant has shown that the total impervious surface for the property would not exceed 27.6 percent. 6. All portions of the concrete slab on the subject property on the south side of South Shore Drive shall be removed. 7. Any changes or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. 8. 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 2 103 0. 06 of the Zoning Ordinance. ADOPTED by the City Council on February 7, 2006. 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 February 7, 2006, 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