HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2006-383CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 2006-383
APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR BRAD AND PAULINE BLASCHKO FOR IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1429 WEST MEDICINE LAKE
DRIVE (2006077)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Brad and Pauline Blaschko which requests approval
of an impervious surface coverage variance to allow a remodel to the existing home for property
legally described as follows:
Lot 10, Block 1, Elmhurst -Gateway, 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 Brad
and Pauline Blaschko for an impervious surface coverage variance to allow a remodel to the
existing home at 1429 West Medicine Lake Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. This resolution approves a variance to allow impervious surface coverage of 45.6 percent, in
accordance with the plans received by the City on August 24, 2006, except as may be
amended by this resolution.
2. The variance is approved with the findings that the applicable variance standards are met, as
follows:
a) The conditions of the parcel are unique due its small size. The lot is 6,400 square feet,
where the minimum lot area for the RSF-3 district is 7,000 square feet. The proposed
project would reduce existing non -conformities on this lot.
Resolution 2006-383
(2006077)
Page 2 of 3
b) The circumstances related to this request are not generally applicable to other properties in
the RSF-3 district. The original platting of the "Elmhurst Gateway Addition" does not
serve the needs of present day land use. The applicant is requesting an impervious surface
coverage variance to allow a net reduction in impervious surface area coverage.
c) The request is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income potential of
the property; but rather, the variance is necessary to remodel the home for the
convenience and improved livability of the property owners.
d) The conditions relating to the hardship were not created by the applicant, but rather were
created by the original creation of the 6,400 square foot lot in the early 1900's. The
applicant purchased the property in 1998. In addition, the applicants would slightly
decrease the impervious surface on the lot and would utilize a Best Management Practice
of a soil amendment.
e) The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The applicants are proposing to remove
the existing detached garage and driveway, which are both non -conforming to current
setback requirements to allow a home remodel that conforms to all current setback and
height requirements.
f) The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property,
nor would it substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the
danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
g) The variance request is reasonable based upon the unique conditions of the parcel, and
strikes a balance between allowing a major remodel of the property to occur while
minimizing the extent of the variation needed to alleviate the hardship.
3. A building permit is required prior to any construction on the property.
4. Prior to any site grading or building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide silt
fencing on the site.
5. 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.
Resolution 2006-383
(2006077)
Page 3 of 3
ADOPTED by the City Council on October 10, 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 October 10, 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